diff mbox series

xen-detect: make CPUID fallback CPUID-faulting aware

Message ID 6b594869-1c64-93a3-7f19-f7374b62eeee@suse.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show
Series xen-detect: make CPUID fallback CPUID-faulting aware | expand

Commit Message

Jan Beulich Oct. 14, 2020, 3:23 p.m. UTC
Relying on presence / absence of hypervisor leaves in raw / escaped
CPUID output cannot be used to tell apart PV and HVM on CPUID faulting
capable hardware. Utilize a PV-only feature flag to avoid false positive
HVM detection.

While at it also short circuit the main detection loop: For PV, only
the base group of leaves can possibly hold hypervisor information.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>

Comments

Wei Liu Oct. 14, 2020, 3:46 p.m. UTC | #1
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 05:23:23PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Relying on presence / absence of hypervisor leaves in raw / escaped
> CPUID output cannot be used to tell apart PV and HVM on CPUID faulting
> capable hardware. Utilize a PV-only feature flag to avoid false positive
> HVM detection.
> 
> While at it also short circuit the main detection loop: For PV, only
> the base group of leaves can possibly hold hypervisor information.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>

Acked-by: Wei Liu <wl@xen.org>
diff mbox series

Patch

--- a/tools/misc/xen-detect.c
+++ b/tools/misc/xen-detect.c
@@ -83,11 +83,31 @@  static int check_for_xen(int pv_context)
 
         if ( !strcmp("XenVMMXenVMM", signature) && (regs[0] >= (base + 2)) )
             goto found;
+
+        /* Higher base addresses are possible only with HVM. */
+        if ( pv_context )
+            break;
     }
 
     return 0;
 
  found:
+    /*
+     * On CPUID faulting capable hardware even un-escaped CPUID will return
+     * the hypervisor leaves. Need to further distinguish modes.
+     */
+    if ( !pv_context )
+    {
+        /*
+         * XEN_CPUID_FEAT1_MMU_PT_UPDATE_PRESERVE_AD is a PV-only feature
+         * pre-dating CPUID faulting support in Xen. Hence we can use it to
+         * tell whether we shouldn't report "success" to our caller here.
+         */
+        cpuid(base + 2, regs, 0);
+        if ( regs[2] & (1u << 0) )
+            return 0;
+    }
+
     cpuid(base + 1, regs, pv_context);
     if ( regs[0] )
     {