Re: [PATCH v4 28/28] arm/arm64: Add hyp-stub API documentation

Christoffer Dall
2017-03-24T15:23:40Z

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 02:42:13PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 24/03/17 14:33, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 07:20:58PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >> In order to help people understanding the hyp-stub API that exists
> >> between the host kernel and the hypervisor mode (whether a hypervisor
> >> has been installed or not), let's document said API.
> >>
> >> As with any form of documentation, I expect it to become obsolete
> >> and completely misleading within 20 minutes after having being merged.
> >
> > I don't think this last sentence belongs in the commit message.
> >
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
> >> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
> >> ---
> >> Documentation/virtual/kvm/arm/hyp-abi.txt | 45 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+)
> >> create mode 100644 Documentation/virtual/kvm/arm/hyp-abi.txt
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/arm/hyp-abi.txt b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/arm/hyp-abi.txt
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 000000000000..a1e0314d2249
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/arm/hyp-abi.txt
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
> >> +* Internal ABI between the kernel and HYP
> >> +
> >> +This file documents the interaction between the Linux kernel and the
> >> +hypervisor layer when running Linux as a hypervisor (for example
> >> +KVM). It doesn't cover the interaction of the kernel with the
> >> +hypervisor when running as a guest (under Xen, KVM or any other
> >> +hypervisor), or any hypervisor-specific interaction when the kernel is
> >> +used as a host.
> >> +
> >> +On arm and arm64 (without VHE), the kernel doesn't run in hypervisor
> >> +mode, but still needs to interact with it, allowing a built-in
> >> +hypervisor to be either installed or torn down.
> >> +
> >> +In order to achieve this, the kernel must be booted at HYP (arm) or
> >> +EL2 (arm64), allowing it to install a set of stubs before dropping to
> >> +SVC/EL1. These stubs are accessible by using a 'hvc #0' instruction,
> >> +and only act on individual CPUs.
> >> +
> >> +Unless specified otherwise, any built-in hypervisor must implement
> >> +these functions (see arch/arm{,64}/include/asm/virt.h):
> >> +
> >> +* r0/x0 = HVC_SET_VECTORS
> >> + r1/x1 = vectors
> >> +
> >> + Set HVBAR/VBAR_EL2 to 'vectors' to enable a hypervisor. 'vectors'
> >> + must be a physical address, and respect the alignment requirements
> >> + of the architecture. Only implemented by the initial stubs.
> >
> > Does this last sentence mean that KVM doesn't implement this function?
>
> Indeed.

I think the wording could be improved to "Only implemented by the
initial stubs, not by Linux hypervisors."

> Directly setting the vectors is inherently unsafe (MMU could
> still be ON, for example), hence the HVC_SET_VECTORS operation that
> allow this to be done safely (RESET followed by SET).
>

Hmm, is it any less safe than setting the vectors using the hyp stubs?
In the initial case, we're relying on the caller knowing that the MMU is
off, and that the stubs are in place, otherwise it doesn't make sense.

But I think the point is just that we don't have a need to change the
vector from within KVM; we only have a need to set the vector when going
from stub->kvm, and we have a need to reset the whole thing (including
turning off the MMU) when going from kvm->stub.

Anyhow, my comment was just about the wording, as I had some nagging
doubt when I read the patch.

> >
> >> +
> >> +* r0/x0 = HVC_RESET_VECTORS
> >> +
> >> + Turn HYP/EL2 MMU off, and reset HVBAR/VBAR_EL2 to the default
> >> + value. This effectively disables an existing hypervisor.
> >
> > What's the 'default value' ? Could we say to the physical address of
> > the hypervisor stub's exception vector?
>
> Shouldn't that be the kernel stub's exception vector?
>

Yeah, the "initials stubs' exception vector" is probably the most
coherent thing we can use here.

Thanks,
-Christoffer