diff mbox series

[v2,2/6] KVM: x86: hyper-v: Add extended hypercall support in Hyper-v

Message ID 20221121234026.3037083-3-vipinsh@google.com
State New
Headers
Series Add Hyper-v extended hypercall support in KVM |

Commit Message

Vipin Sharma Nov. 21, 2022, 11:40 p.m. UTC 
  Add support for extended hypercall in Hyper-v. Hyper-v TLFS 6.0b
describes hypercalls above call code 0x8000 as extended hypercalls.

A Hyper-v hypervisor's guest VM finds availability of extended
hypercalls via CPUID.0x40000003.EBX BIT(20). If the bit is set then the
guest can call extended hypercalls.

All extended hypercalls will exit to userspace by default. This allows
for easy support of future hypercalls without being dependent on KVM
releases.

If there will be need to process the hypercall in KVM instead of
userspace then KVM can create a capability which userspace can query to
know which hypercalls can be handled by the KVM and enable handling
of those hypercalls.

Signed-off-by: Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com>
---
 arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)

Comments

Vitaly Kuznetsov Nov. 22, 2022, 4:29 p.m. UTC | #1 
Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com> writes:

> Add support for extended hypercall in Hyper-v. Hyper-v TLFS 6.0b
> describes hypercalls above call code 0x8000 as extended hypercalls.
>
> A Hyper-v hypervisor's guest VM finds availability of extended
> hypercalls via CPUID.0x40000003.EBX BIT(20). If the bit is set then the
> guest can call extended hypercalls.
>
> All extended hypercalls will exit to userspace by default. This allows
> for easy support of future hypercalls without being dependent on KVM
> releases.
>
> If there will be need to process the hypercall in KVM instead of
> userspace then KVM can create a capability which userspace can query to
> know which hypercalls can be handled by the KVM and enable handling
> of those hypercalls.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> index 0b6964ed2e66..8551ef495cc9 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> @@ -43,6 +43,12 @@
>  
>  #define KVM_HV_MAX_SPARSE_VCPU_SET_BITS DIV_ROUND_UP(KVM_MAX_VCPUS, HV_VCPUS_PER_SPARSE_BANK)
>  
> +/*
> + * The TLFS carves out 64 possible extended hypercalls, numbered sequentially
> + * after the base capabilities extended hypercall.
> + */
> +#define HV_EXT_CALL_MAX (HV_EXT_CALL_QUERY_CAPABILITIES + 64)
> +

First, I thought there's an off-by-one here (and should be '63') but
then I checked with TLFS and figured out that the limit comes from
HvExtCallQueryCapabilities's response which doesn't include itself
(0x8001) in the mask, this means it can encode

0x8002 == bit0
0x8003 == bit1
..
0x8041 == bit63

so indeed, the last one supported is 0x8041 == 0x8001 + 64

maybe it's worth extending the commont on where '64' comes from.

>  static void stimer_mark_pending(struct kvm_vcpu_hv_stimer *stimer,
>  				bool vcpu_kick);
>  
> @@ -2411,6 +2417,9 @@ static bool hv_check_hypercall_access(struct kvm_vcpu_hv *hv_vcpu, u16 code)
>  	case HVCALL_SEND_IPI:
>  		return hv_vcpu->cpuid_cache.enlightenments_eax &
>  			HV_X64_CLUSTER_IPI_RECOMMENDED;
> +	case HV_EXT_CALL_QUERY_CAPABILITIES ... HV_EXT_CALL_MAX:
> +		return hv_vcpu->cpuid_cache.features_ebx &
> +				HV_ENABLE_EXTENDED_HYPERCALLS;
>  	default:
>  		break;
>  	}
> @@ -2564,6 +2573,12 @@ int kvm_hv_hypercall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  		}
>  		goto hypercall_userspace_exit;
>  	}
> +	case HV_EXT_CALL_QUERY_CAPABILITIES ... HV_EXT_CALL_MAX:
> +		if (unlikely(hc.fast)) {
> +			ret = HV_STATUS_INVALID_PARAMETER;

I wasn't able to find any statement in TLFS stating whether extended
hypercalls can be 'fast', I can imagine e.g. MemoryHeatHintAsync using
it. Unfortunatelly, our userspace exit will have to be modified to
handle such stuff. This can stay for the time being I guess..

> +			break;
> +		}
> +		goto hypercall_userspace_exit;
>  	default:
>  		ret = HV_STATUS_INVALID_HYPERCALL_CODE;
>  		break;
> @@ -2722,6 +2737,7 @@ int kvm_get_hv_cpuid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_cpuid2 *cpuid,
>  
>  			ent->ebx |= HV_POST_MESSAGES;
>  			ent->ebx |= HV_SIGNAL_EVENTS;
> +			ent->ebx |= HV_ENABLE_EXTENDED_HYPERCALLS;
>  
>  			ent->edx |= HV_X64_HYPERCALL_XMM_INPUT_AVAILABLE;
>  			ent->edx |= HV_FEATURE_FREQUENCY_MSRS_AVAILABLE;

Reviewed-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
Vipin Sharma Nov. 23, 2022, 7:43 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 8:29 AM Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com> writes:
>
> > +/*
> > + * The TLFS carves out 64 possible extended hypercalls, numbered sequentially
> > + * after the base capabilities extended hypercall.
> > + */
> > +#define HV_EXT_CALL_MAX (HV_EXT_CALL_QUERY_CAPABILITIES + 64)
> > +
>
> First, I thought there's an off-by-one here (and should be '63') but
> then I checked with TLFS and figured out that the limit comes from
> HvExtCallQueryCapabilities's response which doesn't include itself
> (0x8001) in the mask, this means it can encode
>
> 0x8002 == bit0
> 0x8003 == bit1
> ..
> 0x8041 == bit63
>
> so indeed, the last one supported is 0x8041 == 0x8001 + 64
>
> maybe it's worth extending the commont on where '64' comes from.
>

Yeah, I will expand comments.

> >  static void stimer_mark_pending(struct kvm_vcpu_hv_stimer *stimer,
> >                               bool vcpu_kick);
> >
> > @@ -2411,6 +2417,9 @@ static bool hv_check_hypercall_access(struct kvm_vcpu_hv *hv_vcpu, u16 code)
> >       case HVCALL_SEND_IPI:
> >               return hv_vcpu->cpuid_cache.enlightenments_eax &
> >                       HV_X64_CLUSTER_IPI_RECOMMENDED;
> > +     case HV_EXT_CALL_QUERY_CAPABILITIES ... HV_EXT_CALL_MAX:
> > +             return hv_vcpu->cpuid_cache.features_ebx &
> > +                             HV_ENABLE_EXTENDED_HYPERCALLS;
> >       default:
> >               break;
> >       }
> > @@ -2564,6 +2573,12 @@ int kvm_hv_hypercall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >               }
> >               goto hypercall_userspace_exit;
> >       }
> > +     case HV_EXT_CALL_QUERY_CAPABILITIES ... HV_EXT_CALL_MAX:
> > +             if (unlikely(hc.fast)) {
> > +                     ret = HV_STATUS_INVALID_PARAMETER;
>
> I wasn't able to find any statement in TLFS stating whether extended
> hypercalls can be 'fast', I can imagine e.g. MemoryHeatHintAsync using
> it. Unfortunatelly, our userspace exit will have to be modified to
> handle such stuff. This can stay for the time being I guess..
>

I agree TLFS doesn't state anything about "fast" extended hypercall
but nothing stops in future for some call to be "fast". I think this
condition should also be handled by userspace as it is handling
everything else.

I will remove it in the next version of the patch. I don't see any
value in verification here.

> > +                     break;
> > +             }
> > +             goto hypercall_userspace_exit;
> >       default:
> >               ret = HV_STATUS_INVALID_HYPERCALL_CODE;
> >               break;
> > @@ -2722,6 +2737,7 @@ int kvm_get_hv_cpuid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_cpuid2 *cpuid,
> >
> >                       ent->ebx |= HV_POST_MESSAGES;
> >                       ent->ebx |= HV_SIGNAL_EVENTS;
> > +                     ent->ebx |= HV_ENABLE_EXTENDED_HYPERCALLS;
> >
> >                       ent->edx |= HV_X64_HYPERCALL_XMM_INPUT_AVAILABLE;
> >                       ent->edx |= HV_FEATURE_FREQUENCY_MSRS_AVAILABLE;
>
> Reviewed-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
>
> --
> Vitaly
>
Vitaly Kuznetsov Nov. 24, 2022, 8:36 a.m. UTC | #3 
Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com> writes:

> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 8:29 AM Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com> writes:
>>
>> > +/*
>> > + * The TLFS carves out 64 possible extended hypercalls, numbered sequentially
>> > + * after the base capabilities extended hypercall.
>> > + */
>> > +#define HV_EXT_CALL_MAX (HV_EXT_CALL_QUERY_CAPABILITIES + 64)
>> > +
>>
>> First, I thought there's an off-by-one here (and should be '63') but
>> then I checked with TLFS and figured out that the limit comes from
>> HvExtCallQueryCapabilities's response which doesn't include itself
>> (0x8001) in the mask, this means it can encode
>>
>> 0x8002 == bit0
>> 0x8003 == bit1
>> ..
>> 0x8041 == bit63
>>
>> so indeed, the last one supported is 0x8041 == 0x8001 + 64
>>
>> maybe it's worth extending the commont on where '64' comes from.
>>
>
> Yeah, I will expand comments.
>
>> >  static void stimer_mark_pending(struct kvm_vcpu_hv_stimer *stimer,
>> >                               bool vcpu_kick);
>> >
>> > @@ -2411,6 +2417,9 @@ static bool hv_check_hypercall_access(struct kvm_vcpu_hv *hv_vcpu, u16 code)
>> >       case HVCALL_SEND_IPI:
>> >               return hv_vcpu->cpuid_cache.enlightenments_eax &
>> >                       HV_X64_CLUSTER_IPI_RECOMMENDED;
>> > +     case HV_EXT_CALL_QUERY_CAPABILITIES ... HV_EXT_CALL_MAX:
>> > +             return hv_vcpu->cpuid_cache.features_ebx &
>> > +                             HV_ENABLE_EXTENDED_HYPERCALLS;
>> >       default:
>> >               break;
>> >       }
>> > @@ -2564,6 +2573,12 @@ int kvm_hv_hypercall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> >               }
>> >               goto hypercall_userspace_exit;
>> >       }
>> > +     case HV_EXT_CALL_QUERY_CAPABILITIES ... HV_EXT_CALL_MAX:
>> > +             if (unlikely(hc.fast)) {
>> > +                     ret = HV_STATUS_INVALID_PARAMETER;
>>
>> I wasn't able to find any statement in TLFS stating whether extended
>> hypercalls can be 'fast', I can imagine e.g. MemoryHeatHintAsync using
>> it. Unfortunatelly, our userspace exit will have to be modified to
>> handle such stuff. This can stay for the time being I guess..
>>
>
> I agree TLFS doesn't state anything about "fast" extended hypercall
> but nothing stops in future for some call to be "fast". I think this
> condition should also be handled by userspace as it is handling
> everything else.
>
> I will remove it in the next version of the patch. I don't see any
> value in verification here.

The problem is that we don't currently pass 'fast' flag to userspace,
let alone XMM registers. This means that it won't be able to handle fast
hypercalls anyway, I guess it's better to keep your check but add a
comment saying that it's an implementation shortcoming and not a TLFS
requirement.


>
>> > +                     break;
>> > +             }
>> > +             goto hypercall_userspace_exit;
>> >       default:
>> >               ret = HV_STATUS_INVALID_HYPERCALL_CODE;
>> >               break;
>> > @@ -2722,6 +2737,7 @@ int kvm_get_hv_cpuid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_cpuid2 *cpuid,
>> >
>> >                       ent->ebx |= HV_POST_MESSAGES;
>> >                       ent->ebx |= HV_SIGNAL_EVENTS;
>> > +                     ent->ebx |= HV_ENABLE_EXTENDED_HYPERCALLS;
>> >
>> >                       ent->edx |= HV_X64_HYPERCALL_XMM_INPUT_AVAILABLE;
>> >                       ent->edx |= HV_FEATURE_FREQUENCY_MSRS_AVAILABLE;
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
>>
>> --
>> Vitaly
>>
>
Vipin Sharma Nov. 24, 2022, 9:03 a.m. UTC | #4 
On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 12:36 AM Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 8:29 AM Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > +/*
> >> > + * The TLFS carves out 64 possible extended hypercalls, numbered sequentially
> >> > + * after the base capabilities extended hypercall.
> >> > + */
> >> > +#define HV_EXT_CALL_MAX (HV_EXT_CALL_QUERY_CAPABILITIES + 64)
> >> > +
> >>
> >> First, I thought there's an off-by-one here (and should be '63') but
> >> then I checked with TLFS and figured out that the limit comes from
> >> HvExtCallQueryCapabilities's response which doesn't include itself
> >> (0x8001) in the mask, this means it can encode
> >>
> >> 0x8002 == bit0
> >> 0x8003 == bit1
> >> ..
> >> 0x8041 == bit63
> >>
> >> so indeed, the last one supported is 0x8041 == 0x8001 + 64
> >>
> >> maybe it's worth extending the commont on where '64' comes from.
> >>
> >
> > Yeah, I will expand comments.
> >
> >> >  static void stimer_mark_pending(struct kvm_vcpu_hv_stimer *stimer,
> >> >                               bool vcpu_kick);
> >> >
> >> > @@ -2411,6 +2417,9 @@ static bool hv_check_hypercall_access(struct kvm_vcpu_hv *hv_vcpu, u16 code)
> >> >       case HVCALL_SEND_IPI:
> >> >               return hv_vcpu->cpuid_cache.enlightenments_eax &
> >> >                       HV_X64_CLUSTER_IPI_RECOMMENDED;
> >> > +     case HV_EXT_CALL_QUERY_CAPABILITIES ... HV_EXT_CALL_MAX:
> >> > +             return hv_vcpu->cpuid_cache.features_ebx &
> >> > +                             HV_ENABLE_EXTENDED_HYPERCALLS;
> >> >       default:
> >> >               break;
> >> >       }
> >> > @@ -2564,6 +2573,12 @@ int kvm_hv_hypercall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >> >               }
> >> >               goto hypercall_userspace_exit;
> >> >       }
> >> > +     case HV_EXT_CALL_QUERY_CAPABILITIES ... HV_EXT_CALL_MAX:
> >> > +             if (unlikely(hc.fast)) {
> >> > +                     ret = HV_STATUS_INVALID_PARAMETER;
> >>
> >> I wasn't able to find any statement in TLFS stating whether extended
> >> hypercalls can be 'fast', I can imagine e.g. MemoryHeatHintAsync using
> >> it. Unfortunatelly, our userspace exit will have to be modified to
> >> handle such stuff. This can stay for the time being I guess..
> >>
> >
> > I agree TLFS doesn't state anything about "fast" extended hypercall
> > but nothing stops in future for some call to be "fast". I think this
> > condition should also be handled by userspace as it is handling
> > everything else.
> >
> > I will remove it in the next version of the patch. I don't see any
> > value in verification here.
>
> The problem is that we don't currently pass 'fast' flag to userspace,
> let alone XMM registers. This means that it won't be able to handle fast
> hypercalls anyway, I guess it's better to keep your check but add a
> comment saying that it's an implementation shortcoming and not a TLFS
> requirement.
>

I think "fast" flag gets passed to the userspace via:
  vcpu->run->hyperv.u.hcall.input = hc.param;

Yeah, XMM registers won't be passed, that will require userspace API change.
I will keep the check and explain in the comments.

>
> >
> >> > +                     break;
> >> > +             }
> >> > +             goto hypercall_userspace_exit;
> >> >       default:
> >> >               ret = HV_STATUS_INVALID_HYPERCALL_CODE;
> >> >               break;
> >> > @@ -2722,6 +2737,7 @@ int kvm_get_hv_cpuid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_cpuid2 *cpuid,
> >> >
> >> >                       ent->ebx |= HV_POST_MESSAGES;
> >> >                       ent->ebx |= HV_SIGNAL_EVENTS;
> >> > +                     ent->ebx |= HV_ENABLE_EXTENDED_HYPERCALLS;
> >> >
> >> >                       ent->edx |= HV_X64_HYPERCALL_XMM_INPUT_AVAILABLE;
> >> >                       ent->edx |= HV_FEATURE_FREQUENCY_MSRS_AVAILABLE;
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Vitaly
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Vitaly
>
Vitaly Kuznetsov Nov. 24, 2022, 9:28 a.m. UTC | #5 
Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com> writes:

> On Thu, Nov 24, 2022 at 12:36 AM Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com> writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 8:29 AM Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Vipin Sharma <vipinsh@google.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > +/*
>> >> > + * The TLFS carves out 64 possible extended hypercalls, numbered sequentially
>> >> > + * after the base capabilities extended hypercall.
>> >> > + */
>> >> > +#define HV_EXT_CALL_MAX (HV_EXT_CALL_QUERY_CAPABILITIES + 64)
>> >> > +
>> >>
>> >> First, I thought there's an off-by-one here (and should be '63') but
>> >> then I checked with TLFS and figured out that the limit comes from
>> >> HvExtCallQueryCapabilities's response which doesn't include itself
>> >> (0x8001) in the mask, this means it can encode
>> >>
>> >> 0x8002 == bit0
>> >> 0x8003 == bit1
>> >> ..
>> >> 0x8041 == bit63
>> >>
>> >> so indeed, the last one supported is 0x8041 == 0x8001 + 64
>> >>
>> >> maybe it's worth extending the commont on where '64' comes from.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Yeah, I will expand comments.
>> >
>> >> >  static void stimer_mark_pending(struct kvm_vcpu_hv_stimer *stimer,
>> >> >                               bool vcpu_kick);
>> >> >
>> >> > @@ -2411,6 +2417,9 @@ static bool hv_check_hypercall_access(struct kvm_vcpu_hv *hv_vcpu, u16 code)
>> >> >       case HVCALL_SEND_IPI:
>> >> >               return hv_vcpu->cpuid_cache.enlightenments_eax &
>> >> >                       HV_X64_CLUSTER_IPI_RECOMMENDED;
>> >> > +     case HV_EXT_CALL_QUERY_CAPABILITIES ... HV_EXT_CALL_MAX:
>> >> > +             return hv_vcpu->cpuid_cache.features_ebx &
>> >> > +                             HV_ENABLE_EXTENDED_HYPERCALLS;
>> >> >       default:
>> >> >               break;
>> >> >       }
>> >> > @@ -2564,6 +2573,12 @@ int kvm_hv_hypercall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> >> >               }
>> >> >               goto hypercall_userspace_exit;
>> >> >       }
>> >> > +     case HV_EXT_CALL_QUERY_CAPABILITIES ... HV_EXT_CALL_MAX:
>> >> > +             if (unlikely(hc.fast)) {
>> >> > +                     ret = HV_STATUS_INVALID_PARAMETER;
>> >>
>> >> I wasn't able to find any statement in TLFS stating whether extended
>> >> hypercalls can be 'fast', I can imagine e.g. MemoryHeatHintAsync using
>> >> it. Unfortunatelly, our userspace exit will have to be modified to
>> >> handle such stuff. This can stay for the time being I guess..
>> >>
>> >
>> > I agree TLFS doesn't state anything about "fast" extended hypercall
>> > but nothing stops in future for some call to be "fast". I think this
>> > condition should also be handled by userspace as it is handling
>> > everything else.
>> >
>> > I will remove it in the next version of the patch. I don't see any
>> > value in verification here.
>>
>> The problem is that we don't currently pass 'fast' flag to userspace,
>> let alone XMM registers. This means that it won't be able to handle fast
>> hypercalls anyway, I guess it's better to keep your check but add a
>> comment saying that it's an implementation shortcoming and not a TLFS
>> requirement.
>>
>
> I think "fast" flag gets passed to the userspace via:
>   vcpu->run->hyperv.u.hcall.input = hc.param;

True, for some reason I thought it's just the hypercall code but it's
actually the full 64bit thing!

>
> Yeah, XMM registers won't be passed, that will require userspace API change.
> I will keep the check and explain in the comments.
>

Thanks!

>>
>> >
>> >> > +                     break;
>> >> > +             }
>> >> > +             goto hypercall_userspace_exit;
>> >> >       default:
>> >> >               ret = HV_STATUS_INVALID_HYPERCALL_CODE;
>> >> >               break;
>> >> > @@ -2722,6 +2737,7 @@ int kvm_get_hv_cpuid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_cpuid2 *cpuid,
>> >> >
>> >> >                       ent->ebx |= HV_POST_MESSAGES;
>> >> >                       ent->ebx |= HV_SIGNAL_EVENTS;
>> >> > +                     ent->ebx |= HV_ENABLE_EXTENDED_HYPERCALLS;
>> >> >
>> >> >                       ent->edx |= HV_X64_HYPERCALL_XMM_INPUT_AVAILABLE;
>> >> >                       ent->edx |= HV_FEATURE_FREQUENCY_MSRS_AVAILABLE;
>> >>
>> >> Reviewed-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Vitaly
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Vitaly
>>
>
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
index 0b6964ed2e66..8551ef495cc9 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
@@ -43,6 +43,12 @@ 
 
 #define KVM_HV_MAX_SPARSE_VCPU_SET_BITS DIV_ROUND_UP(KVM_MAX_VCPUS, HV_VCPUS_PER_SPARSE_BANK)
 
+/*
+ * The TLFS carves out 64 possible extended hypercalls, numbered sequentially
+ * after the base capabilities extended hypercall.
+ */
+#define HV_EXT_CALL_MAX (HV_EXT_CALL_QUERY_CAPABILITIES + 64)
+
 static void stimer_mark_pending(struct kvm_vcpu_hv_stimer *stimer,
 				bool vcpu_kick);
 
@@ -2411,6 +2417,9 @@  static bool hv_check_hypercall_access(struct kvm_vcpu_hv *hv_vcpu, u16 code)
 	case HVCALL_SEND_IPI:
 		return hv_vcpu->cpuid_cache.enlightenments_eax &
 			HV_X64_CLUSTER_IPI_RECOMMENDED;
+	case HV_EXT_CALL_QUERY_CAPABILITIES ... HV_EXT_CALL_MAX:
+		return hv_vcpu->cpuid_cache.features_ebx &
+				HV_ENABLE_EXTENDED_HYPERCALLS;
 	default:
 		break;
 	}
@@ -2564,6 +2573,12 @@  int kvm_hv_hypercall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
 		}
 		goto hypercall_userspace_exit;
 	}
+	case HV_EXT_CALL_QUERY_CAPABILITIES ... HV_EXT_CALL_MAX:
+		if (unlikely(hc.fast)) {
+			ret = HV_STATUS_INVALID_PARAMETER;
+			break;
+		}
+		goto hypercall_userspace_exit;
 	default:
 		ret = HV_STATUS_INVALID_HYPERCALL_CODE;
 		break;
@@ -2722,6 +2737,7 @@  int kvm_get_hv_cpuid(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_cpuid2 *cpuid,
 
 			ent->ebx |= HV_POST_MESSAGES;
 			ent->ebx |= HV_SIGNAL_EVENTS;
+			ent->ebx |= HV_ENABLE_EXTENDED_HYPERCALLS;
 
 			ent->edx |= HV_X64_HYPERCALL_XMM_INPUT_AVAILABLE;
 			ent->edx |= HV_FEATURE_FREQUENCY_MSRS_AVAILABLE;