On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 03:28:28PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 16.09.2020 15:04, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 02:55:52PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> On 16.09.2020 12:54, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > >>> Windows 10 will try to unconditionally read EX_CFG on AMD hadrware, > >>> and injecting a #GP fault will result in a panic: > >>> > >>> svm.c:1964:d5v0 RDMSR 0xc001102c unimplemented > >>> d5v0 VIRIDIAN CRASH: 7e ffffffffc0000096 fffff8054cbe5ffe > >>> fffffa0837a066e8 fffffa0837a05f30 > >>> > >>> Return 0 when trying to read the MSR and drop writes. > >> > >> So I've gone through a bunch of BKDGs and PPRs, without finding > >> this MSR mentioned in any of them. Could you point out on which > >> model(s) it actually exists? You must have found it somewhere, > >> or else you wouldn't know a name for it... > > > > Yes, sorry it took me a while to find it also, and I should have added > > a reference here. It's in "BIOS and Kernel Developer’s Guide (BKDG) > > for AMD Family 15h Models 00h-0Fh Processors", albeit Windows will try > > to access it on Family 17h also. > > Ah, and it's exclusively this one as it seems. The models 1xh one > again doesn't have it. > > >>> @@ -2108,6 +2109,7 @@ static int svm_msr_write_intercept(unsigned int > >>> msr, uint64_t msr_content) > >>> case MSR_K8_TOP_MEM2: > >>> case MSR_K8_SYSCFG: > >>> case MSR_K8_VM_CR: > >>> + case MSR_AMD64_EX_CFG: > >>> /* ignore write. handle all bits as read-only. */ > >>> break; > >> > >> Is this necessary, rather than having writes fault? > > > > Hm, I'm not sure about that. This is the same that KVM did to handle > > the MSR, see Linux commit 0e1b869fff60c81b510c2d00602d778f8f59dd9a. > > Looking at the sole bit that's defined there, I agree the main reason > for Win10 to read it would look to be to potentially also write it if > it finds certain bits unset. If so, perhaps we want to consider to > report a value with this/these bit(s) set?
So the manual only reports the meaning of bit 54, yet my EPYC system reports 0x0168000000000000. > > I can try to return #GP for writes, but I don't see much issue in just > > ignoring writes. > > The reason for me asking is that I'd prefer if we didn't grow an > endless list of exceptions for no reason. In fact I wonder whether > some MSRs that we currently ignore writes for couldn't be dropped. Let me see if I can make Windows happy by returning either bit 54 as 0 or 1, but given the value on bare metal I'm worried that Windows has more insight on this value than just bit 54. Thanks, Roger.
