Re: [PATCH 23/23] KVM: arm64: Treat emulated TVAL TimerValue as a signed 32-bit integer

Marc Zyngier
2020-01-30T14:15:05Z

On 2020-01-30 14:11, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 1/30/20 1:25 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> From: Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>
>>
>> According to the ARM ARM, registers CNT{P,V}_TVAL_EL0 have bits
>> [63:32]
>> RES0 [1]. When reading the register, the value is truncated to the
>> least
>> significant 32 bits [2], and on writes, TimerValue is treated as a
>> signed
>> 32-bit integer [1, 2].
>>
>> When the guest behaves correctly and writes 32-bit values, treating
>> TVAL
>> as an unsigned 64 bit register works as expected. However, things
>> start
>> to break down when the guest writes larger values, because
>> (u64)0x1_ffff_ffff = 8589934591. but (s32)0x1_ffff_ffff = -1, and the
>> former will cause the timer interrupt to be asserted in the future,
>> but
>> the latter will cause it to be asserted now. Let's treat TVAL as a
>> signed 32-bit register on writes, to match the behaviour described in
>> the architecture, and the behaviour experimentally exhibited by the
>> virtual timer on a non-vhe host.
>>
>> [1] Arm DDI 0487E.a, section D13.8.18
>> [2] Arm DDI 0487E.a, section D11.2.4
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>
>> [maz: replaced the read-side mask with lower_32_bits]
>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
>> Fixes: 8fa761624871 ("KVM: arm/arm64: arch_timer: Fix CNTP_TVAL
>> calculation")
>> Link:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200127103652.2326-1-alexandru.elisei@arm.com
>> ---
>> virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c b/virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c
>> index f182b2380345..c6c2a9dde00c 100644
>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c
>> @@ -805,6 +805,7 @@ static u64 kvm_arm_timer_read(struct kvm_vcpu
>> *vcpu,
>> switch (treg) {
>> case TIMER_REG_TVAL:
>> val = timer->cnt_cval - kvm_phys_timer_read() + timer->cntvoff;
>> + val &= lower_32_bits(val);
>
> This is correct, but how about making it val = lower_32_bits(val) for
> more
> clarity? Apologies for not spotting it earlier :(

That's what it should have been, but I obviously typoed it. As it passed
all my tests, I didn't notice the issue. I'll queue a cleanup once Paolo
has a chance to pull this.

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