Re: [PATCH 1/5] KVM: arm64: Correctly honor the presence of FEAT_TCRX

Oliver Upton
2024-06-26T23:55:35Z

On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 07:22:53PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2024 15:37:34 +0100,
> Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 02:00:37PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > We currently blindly enable TCR2_EL1 use in a guest, irrespective
> > > of the feature set. This is obviously wrong, and we should actually
> > > honor the guest configuration and handle the possible trap resulting
> > > from the guest being buggy.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> > > ---
> > > arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_arm.h | 2 +-
> > > arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c | 9 +++++++++
> > > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_arm.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_arm.h
> > > index b2adc2c6c82a5..e6682a3ace5af 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_arm.h
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_arm.h
> > > @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@
> > > #define HCR_HOST_NVHE_PROTECTED_FLAGS (HCR_HOST_NVHE_FLAGS | HCR_TSC)
> > > #define HCR_HOST_VHE_FLAGS (HCR_RW | HCR_TGE | HCR_E2H)
> > >
> > > -#define HCRX_GUEST_FLAGS (HCRX_EL2_SMPME | HCRX_EL2_TCR2En)
> > > +#define HCRX_GUEST_FLAGS (HCRX_EL2_SMPME)
> > > #define HCRX_HOST_FLAGS (HCRX_EL2_MSCEn | HCRX_EL2_TCR2En | HCRX_EL2_EnFPM)
> > >
> > > /* TCR_EL2 Registers bits */
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> > > index 22b45a15d0688..71996d36f3751 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> > > @@ -383,6 +383,12 @@ static bool access_vm_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > bool was_enabled = vcpu_has_cache_enabled(vcpu);
> > > u64 val, mask, shift;
> > >
> > > + if (reg_to_encoding(r) == SYS_TCR2_EL1 &&
> > > + !kvm_has_feat(vcpu->kvm, ID_AA64MMFR3_EL1, TCRX, IMP)) {
> > > + kvm_inject_undefined(vcpu);
> > > + return false;
> > > + }
> > > +
> >
> > If we need to start doing this with more vm(sa) registers, it might make sense
> > to think of a way to do this without putting a big if/else in here. For now
> > this is seems fine.
>
> One possible solution would be to mimic the FGU behaviour and have a
> shadow version of HCRX_EL2 that only indicates the trap routing code
> that something trapped through that bit needs to UNDEF.

Seems reasonable, but that'll be the problem for the _next_ person to
add an affected register ;-)

--
Thanks,
Oliver