[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86/fpu: Split fpu_setup_fpu() in two


  • To: Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.vallejo@xxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 14:47:32 +0200
  • Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
  • Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 12:47:42 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 13.08.2024 14:40, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
> On Mon Aug 12, 2024 at 4:23 PM BST, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 08.08.2024 15:41, Alejandro Vallejo wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>>> @@ -1164,10 +1164,25 @@ static int cf_check hvm_load_cpu_ctxt(struct domain 
>>> *d, hvm_domain_context_t *h)
>>>      seg.attr = ctxt.ldtr_arbytes;
>>>      hvm_set_segment_register(v, x86_seg_ldtr, &seg);
>>>  
>>> -    /* Cover xsave-absent save file restoration on xsave-capable host. */
>>> -    vcpu_setup_fpu(v, xsave_enabled(v) ? NULL : v->arch.xsave_area,
>>> -                   ctxt.flags & XEN_X86_FPU_INITIALISED ? ctxt.fpu_regs : 
>>> NULL,
>>> -                   FCW_RESET);
>>> +    /*
>>> +     * On Xen 4.1 and later the FPU state is restored on later HVM context 
>>> in
>>> +     * the migrate stream, so what we're doing here is initialising the FPU
>>> +     * state for guests from even older versions of Xen.
>>> +     *
>>> +     * In particular:
>>> +     *   1. If there's an XSAVE context later in the stream what we do 
>>> here for
>>> +     *      the FPU doesn't matter because it'll be overriden later.
>>> +     *   2. If there isn't and the guest didn't use extended states it's 
>>> still
>>> +     *      fine because we have all the information we need here.
>>> +     *   3. If there isn't and the guest DID use extended states (could've
>>> +     *      happened prior to Xen 4.1) then we're in a pickle because we 
>>> have
>>> +     *      to make up non-existing state. For this case we initialise the 
>>> FPU
>>> +     *      as using x87/SSE only because the rest of the state is gone.
>>
>> Was this really possible to happen? Guests wouldn't have been able to
>> turn on CR4.OSXSAVE, would they?
> 
> You may be right, but my reading of the comment and the code was that
> xsave_enabled(v) might be set and the XSAVE hvm context might be missing in 
> the
> stream. The archives didn't shed a lot more light than what the code already
> gives away.
> 
> Otherwise it would've been far simpler to unconditionally pass
> v->arch.xsave_area to the second parameter and let the xsave area to be
> overriden by the follow-up HVM context with its actual state.
> 
> If my understanding is wrong, I'm happy to remove (3), as I don't think it
> affects the code anyway. I thought however that it was a relevant data point
> to leave paper trail for.

I would certainly agree - as long as it describes (past) reality. If it
doesn't, I consider it misleading.

Jan



 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.