Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] arm64: Add PSCI v1.3 SYSTEM_OFF2 support for hibernation

David Woodhouse
2024-03-18T18:36:45Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4360 bytes --]

On Mon, 2024-03-18 at 18:31 +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:15:36 +0000,
> David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > [1  <text/plain; UTF-8 (quoted-printable)>]
> > On Mon, 2024-03-18 at 17:41 +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:26:07 +0000,
> > > David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [1  <text/plain; UTF-8 (quoted-printable)>]
> > > > On Mon, 2024-03-18 at 16:57 +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There *is* a way for a VMM to opt *out* of newer PSCI versions... by
> > > > > > setting a per-vCPU "special" register that actually ends up setting the
> > > > > > PSCI version KVM-wide. Quite why this isn't just a simple KVM_CAP, I
> > > > > > have no idea.
> > > > >
> > > > > Because the expectations are that the VMM can blindly save/restore the
> > > > > guest's state, including the PSCI version, and restore that blindly.
> > > > > KVM CAPs are just a really bad design pattern for this sort of things.
> > > >
> > > > Hm, am I missing something here? Does the *guest* get to set the PSCI
> > > > version somehow, and opt into the latest version that it understands
> > > > regardless of what the firmware/host can support?
> > >
> > > No. The *VMM* sets the PSCI version by writing to a pseudo register.
> > > It means that when the guest migrates, the VMM saves and restores that
> > > version, and the guest doesn't see any change.
> >
> > And when you boot a guest image which has been working for years under
> > a new kernel+KVM, your guest suddenly experiences a new PSCI version.
> > As I said that's not just new optional functions; it's potentially even
> > returning new error codes to the functions that said guest was already
> > using.
>
> If you want to stick to a given PSCI version, you write the version
> you want.
>
> >
> > And when you *hibernate* a guest and then launch it again under a newer
> > kernel+KVM, it experiences the same incompatibility.
> >
> > Unless the VMM realises this problem and opts *out* of the newer KVM
> > behaviour, of course. This is very much unlike how we *normally* expose
> > new KVM capabilities.
>
> This was discussed at length 5 or 6 years ago (opt-in vs opt-out).
>
> The feedback from QEMU (which is the only public VMM that does
> anything remotely useful with this) was that opt-out was a better
> model, specially as PSCI is the conduit for advertising the Spectre
> mitigations and users (such as certain cloud vendors) were pretty keen
> on guests seeing the mitigations advertised *by default*.

OK.

> And if you can spot any form of "normality" in the KVM interface, I'll
> buy you whatever beer you want. It is all inconsistent crap, so I
> think we're in pretty good company here.

I'll give you that one :)

> >
> > > > I don't think we ever aspired to be able to hand an arbitrary KVM fd to
> > > > a userspace VMM and have the VMM be able to drive that VM without
> > > > having any a priori context, did we?
> > >
> > > Arbitrary? No. This is actually very specific and pretty well
> > > documented.
> > >
> > > Also, to answer your question about why we treat 0.1 differently from
> > > 0.2+: 0.1 didn't specify the PSCI SMC/HCR encoding, meaning that KVM
> > > implemented something that was never fully specified. The VMM has to
> > > provide firmware tables that describe that. With 0.2+, there is a
> > > standard encoding for all functions, and the VMM doesn't have to
> > > provide the encoding to the guest.
> >
> > Gotcha. So for that case we were *forced* to do things correctly and
> > allow userspace to opt-in to the capability. While for 0.2 onwards we
> > got away with this awfulness of silently upgrading the version without
> > VMM consent.
> >
> > I was hoping to just follow the existing model of SYSTEM_RESET2 and not
> > have to touch this awfulness with a barge-pole, but sure, whatever you
> > want.
>
> Unless I'm reading the whole thing wrong (which isn't impossible given
> that I'm jet-lagged to my eyeballs), SYSTEM_RESET2 doesn't have any
> form of configuration. If PSCI 1.1 is selected, SYSTEM_RESET2 is
> available. So that'd be the model to follow.

Sorry, that was supposed to be SYSTEM_SUSPEND not SYSTEM_RESET2. But
OK.

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 5965 bytes --]