From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-wm1-f52.google.com (mail-wm1-f52.google.com [209.85.128.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A6DB19259E for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:19:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.52 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743171544; cv=none; b=cRRvLfCvN1jIm/dItcoHK+d2Q82eROy0oRTBygdIv2+ovQMAP0K0YVqa11rbVQQxmF4ybWO/G2FK4hqvdb4Zq4aLE0yxJ6ghlgRFsInrAaB7oYIkUNersTUQxlxSDyiuCzWtg32jWV3SPOQmH/NLU3cekeNtMxpA6+cGvZfKsjo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1743171544; c=relaxed/simple; bh=nN0gpJelgd92014adwEpMLZN3nllcaaxAIztxgNBGGM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=fHs3eVe5kxP78QdmXRJUwNuQWrb4CTftmqxjg6pPeIjClWYMp943vT8kjbwl8VmO17tNEodb37+iewcyasZ52k5KVxhvEcfxjbdluhbLNiOgLvs6sj35dIa/gdx3dMdid+2CpHJCgKUdl3pM7HDUm7dS1N7u1OhQIDsvnXkqbVo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=google.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b=4M9FxCB7; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.128.52 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="4M9FxCB7" Received: by mail-wm1-f52.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-43cfe808908so64305e9.0 for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2025 07:19:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20230601; t=1743171541; x=1743776341; darn=lists.linux.dev; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=DgKGnlqsv8JBCCBT4cAI1s7V8k61mCMe7HW1WOz7bZk=; b=4M9FxCB7oH4EtjPkutcKpTUyD39KDOGdzVv7vgR91nET7FWgQHAJwnhEZQNK89bUKH RrsSDySp97GKhTulZVSCWOn+sOUM++1U6U063+D9/YJbjm7OE23kYxIPUGxaOnSgzdRg Yx60wz8fTBzJ8FuJsdEA90CwrCePMpwIWDAmLqFLQlRJAFHvw1lE8EG4n7wYVx89W48v Ya/hVsLJLtmT4n2mgF4QWtATknvDfGOoWJ8Aq0/pv9Agk62GGiQJCk7nN+qc19nhsRDm xkK6NJiqleqOH3zENBzb85Pxnkl3gcLcm1k23vcTnBrbu4/5nlfURQsDAjtBgkpRBBa3 guPg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1743171541; x=1743776341; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=DgKGnlqsv8JBCCBT4cAI1s7V8k61mCMe7HW1WOz7bZk=; b=KeE50uhXHj+yEmLGrWTDA+xY4Ts3UmcKqzhFrhW3XbxhBRASnvd+HoEASrS/4SL1Gp Xy2wDya95zQklLRuhXB6xA5ouBIreWEPq9+lYKZUNt0QLA0uw+Mr5MdYfPSIRt7UDSAV zqvO1P0vA031Z0soKkHOxO99M1ljj2k4NTWarfRAiJYleyUEEVh+TDFDhOWxQrHcRsSe 6m7efsgFkLL0oZwi7rQGZedpCs01Xhk1L56xLzZLo64DVNLh2s5UzJ/axvFfHz0LTWXL g7AUyDN6d3/4dCgvTB0WZF29q+cC3osw99gMKoyhzE5TBR83X4+HmiaQ3Y4jGveKMyLU bp6w== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWwAIa5OtWdvmjiCNSATGfNcmAxPHxKqYLf71WbASngp8EK31VaIdG6sUJ1g3z80h04xNmDesk=@lists.linux.dev X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxZnQVQW+aStcIh//eb9wI/DNewzeYJa+yJsLR8TLRcdHebp/A0 yQJBYgjqUmCzurEA5kcLuxzx1H7QTV1z4cv1s+xRuSqlHNC34OkHp1rdBoflSg== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGnctZcsAzbO34yrISuPwSXWuheRBviF91l0wm/7qb+5uVu1wSUPdZ0/UfG9dQPHk MtTU/uS5Es2Xx9uJoA1ifLAqwRaxNmfo/3UulJpoJPPrZx8I92WANrv0ozXphiggqgTBFBI22m2 TRPVaK76DMvd4VeKK++553GvuQDR0u4V3MmtXyI6HFDfOX44Y0solrXO6DWXqcCxPC8UusjCyPx J5Uzybrtku2Mhst2PLGxnKDRvHc7vrFZMaYQTXJ3UkxkodTR3qOp8mjsJKf23zUtVnUndIYg3mi plPAtyqS9lbdPhAK5AwKtfwkjdW66YZol+P4ClmcQxaVf5OrF18yo11V0ZxkaUaWZJeHaE4uZtW uYnDlLqw+sQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHxOKuumMNh+x8OQRqeAYCAeaAh/X2iaTKV9NNyWp8l9Mpc74sAcjSgUeJ0CBhJSW8k13LnEA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:4793:b0:43b:bf3f:9664 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-43d9182811fmr778435e9.5.1743171540532; Fri, 28 Mar 2025 07:19:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com (28.140.38.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.38.140.28]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ffacd0b85a97d-39c0b663573sm2853690f8f.33.2025.03.28.07.18.59 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 28 Mar 2025 07:18:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:18:55 +0000 From: Sebastian Ene To: Quentin Perret Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, joey.gouly@arm.com, maz@kernel.org, oliver.upton@linux.dev, snehalreddy@google.com, sudeep.holla@arm.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, vdonnefort@google.com, will@kernel.org, yuzenghui@huawei.com, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com, Andrei Homescu Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] KVM: arm64: Release the ownership of the hyp rx buffer to Trustzone Message-ID: References: <20250326113901.3308804-1-sebastianene@google.com> <20250326113901.3308804-4-sebastianene@google.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: kvmarm@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 11:39:45AM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote: > On Thursday 27 Mar 2025 at 09:37:31 (+0000), Sebastian Ene wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 04:48:33PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote: > > > On Wednesday 26 Mar 2025 at 11:39:01 (+0000), Sebastian Ene wrote: > > > > Introduce the release FF-A call to notify Trustzone that the hypervisor > > > > has finished copying the data from the buffer shared with Trustzone to > > > > the non-secure partition. > > > > > > > > Reported-by: Andrei Homescu > > > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Ene > > > > --- > > > > arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c | 9 ++++++--- > > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c > > > > index 6df6131f1107..ac898ea6274a 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c > > > > @@ -749,6 +749,7 @@ static void do_ffa_part_get(struct arm_smccc_res *res, > > > > DECLARE_REG(u32, uuid3, ctxt, 4); > > > > DECLARE_REG(u32, flags, ctxt, 5); > > > > u32 count, partition_sz, copy_sz; > > > > + struct arm_smccc_res _res; > > > > > > > > hyp_spin_lock(&host_buffers.lock); > > > > if (!host_buffers.rx) { > > > > @@ -765,11 +766,11 @@ static void do_ffa_part_get(struct arm_smccc_res *res, > > > > > > > > count = res->a2; > > > > if (!count) > > > > - goto out_unlock; > > > > + goto release_rx; > > > > > > > > if (hyp_ffa_version > FFA_VERSION_1_0) { > > > > /* Get the number of partitions deployed in the system */ > > > > - if (flags & 0x1) > > > > + if (flags & PARTITION_INFO_GET_RETURN_COUNT_ONLY) > > > > goto out_unlock; > > > > > > > > partition_sz = res->a3; > > > > @@ -781,10 +782,12 @@ static void do_ffa_part_get(struct arm_smccc_res *res, > > > > copy_sz = partition_sz * count; > > > > if (copy_sz > KVM_FFA_MBOX_NR_PAGES * PAGE_SIZE) { > > > > ffa_to_smccc_res(res, FFA_RET_ABORTED); > > > > - goto out_unlock; > > > > + goto release_rx; > > > > } > > > > > > > > memcpy(host_buffers.rx, hyp_buffers.rx, copy_sz); > > > > +release_rx: > > > > + ffa_rx_release(&_res); > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I'm a bit confused about this release call here. In the pKVM FF-A proxy > > > model, the hypervisor is essentially 'transparent', so do we not expect > > > EL1 to issue that instead? > > > > I think the EL1 should also issue this call irrespective of what the > > hypervisor is doing. Sudeep can correct me here if I am wrong, but this > > is my take on this. > > Agreed, but with the code as it is implemented in this patch, I think > that from the host perspective there is a difference in semantic for > the release call. W/o pKVM the buffer is essentially 'locked' until > the host issues the release call. With pKVM, the buffer is effectively > unlocked immediately upon return from the PARTITION_INFO_GET call > because the hypervisor happened to have issued the release call > behind our back. And there is no way the host to know the difference. I understand your point that you are trying to make the hypervisor transparent, but it is not behaving in this way. One example is that we still enforce a limit on the size of the ffa_descr_buffer for reclaiming memory. Letting this aside, I am curios (maybe on another thread) what do we gain by trying to keep the same behaviour w/o pkvm ? > > I understand that we can argue the hypervisor-issued call is for the > EL2-TZ buffers while the EL1-issued call is for the EL1-EL2 buffers, > but that's not quite working that way since pKVM just blindly forwards > the release calls coming from EL1 w/o implementing the expected > semantic. > I think blindly-forwarding the release call is problematic and we should prevent this from happening. It is wrong from multipple pov: the host is not the owner of the hyp_rx buffer and you are asking TZ to release the hypervisor RX buffer by forwarding it. Do you agree on that ? I think like this patch should include this. > > I am looking at this as a way of signaling the availability of the rx > > buffer across partitions. There are some calls that when invoked, they > > place the buffer in a 'locked state'. > > > > > > > How is EL1 supposed to know that the > > > hypervisor has already sent the release call? > > > > It doesn't need to know, it issues the call as there is no hypervisor > > in-between, why would it need to know ? > > As per the comment above, there is a host-visible difference in semantic > with or without pKVM which IMO is problematic. If we apply what I suggested earlier we won't have an issue with the semantic for this call but it would make the code a mess. I don't think for this particular call keeping semantics really makes a difference. > > For example, if the host issues two PARTITION_INFO_GET calls back to > back w/o a release call in between, IIUC the expectation from the > FF-A spec is for the second one to fail. With this patch applied, the > second call would succeed thanks to the implicit release-call issued by > pKVM. But it would fail as it is supposed to do w/o pKVM. > > I'm not entirely sure if that's gonna cause real-world problem, but it > does feel unecessary at best. Are we trying to fix an EL1 bug in the > hypervisor here? > This was most likely observed from an issue from the EL1 driver (by not calling release explicitly), it was reported by Andrei Homescu . it appears that we also have to do something in the hyp about it and we agreed with Will and Sudeep in the previous version of the patch: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250313121559.GB7356@willie-the-truck/ > > > And isn't EL1 going to be > > > confused if the content of the buffer is overridden before is has issued > > > the release call itself? > > > > The hypervisor should prevent changes to the buffer mapped between the > > host and itself until the release_rx call is issued from the host. > > If another call that wants to make use of the rx buffer sneaks in, we > > would have to revoke it with BUSY until rx_release is sent. > > Right, exactly, but that's not implemented at the moment. IMO it is much > simpler to rely on the host to issue the release call and just not do it > from the PARTITION_INFO_GET path in pKVM. And if we're scared about a > release call racing with PARTITION_INFO_GET at pKVM level, all we should > need to do is forward the release call with the host_buffers.lock held I > think. Wdyt? > > Thanks, > Quentin