Re: [PATCH v7 09/11] arm64: disable SCS for hypervisor code

Marc Zyngier
2020-02-11T10:00:26Z

On 2020-02-11 09:55, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 09:14:52AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 2020-02-10 18:07, Will Deacon wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 06:03:28PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 05:52:15PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
>> > > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 05:18:58PM +0000, James Morse wrote:
>> > > > > On 28/01/2020 18:49, Sami Tolvanen wrote:
>> > > > > > Filter out CC_FLAGS_SCS and -ffixed-x18 for code that runs at a
>> > > > > > different exception level.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Hmmm, there are two things being disabled here.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Stashing the lr in memory pointed to by VA won't work transparently at EL2 ... but
>> > > > > shouldn't KVM's C code still treat x18 as a fixed register?
>> > > >
>> > > > My review of v6 suggested dropping the -ffixed-x18 as well, since it's only
>> > > > introduced by SCS (in patch 5) and so isn't required by anything else. Why
>> > > > do you think it's needed?
>> > >
>> > > When EL1 code calls up to hyp, it expects x18 to be preserved across
>> > > the
>> > > call, so hyp needs to either preserve it explicitly across a
>> > > transitions
>> > > from/to EL1 or always preserve it.
>> >
>> > I thought we explicitly saved/restored it across the call after
>> > af12376814a5 ("arm64: kvm: stop treating register x18 as caller save").
>> > Is
>> > that not sufficient?
>> >
>> > > The latter is easiest since any code used by VHE hyp code will need
>> > > x18
>> > > saved anyway (ans so any common hyp code needs to).
>> >
>> > I would personally prefer to split the VHE and non-VHE code so they can
>> > be
>> > compiled with separate options.
>>
>> This is going to generate a lot of code duplication (or at least
>> object
>> duplication),
>> as the two code paths are intricately linked and splitting them to
>> support
>> different
>> compilation options and/or calling conventions.
>>
>> I'm not fundamentally opposed to that, but it should come with ways to
>> still
>> manage it as a unified code base as much as possible, as ways to
>> discard the
>> unused part at runtime (which should become easy to do once we have
>> two
>> distinct sets of objects).
>
> Agreed, and I don't want to hold up the SCS patches because of this.
> I'm
> just nervous about the function attribute because I've only ever had
> terrible experiences with them. Maybe it will work this time (!)

I have the same experience chasing missing __hyp_text attributes. Until
we
have tooling that picks on this *at compile time*, we'll have to play
wack-a-mole with them...

M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...