From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Oliver Upton <oupton@kernel.org>
Cc: kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, Steffen Eiden <seiden@linux.ibm.com>,
Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@arm.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
Fuad Tabba <fuad.tabba@linux.dev>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Don't let a guest overwrite HCRX_EL2.MCE2
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2026 09:38:58 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <86o6cexiz1.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <auE90LmMMmac8J1s@kernel.org>
On Wed, 28 Oct 2026 00:12:00 +0000,
Oliver Upton <oupton@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2026 at 08:26:33AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > FEAT_MOPS is fun. CPUs are allowed to implement any of two ways to
> > perform the memory copy, and the hypervisor is in charge of hiding
> > the difference between implementation when the vcpu migrates from
> > one to another. This is unhelpfully signalled with an exception,
> > which KVM diligently handles.
> >
> > Today, we don't really make a good job of it in the sense that
> > if L1 also has the trap bit set, we don't forward the trap as
> > the architecture would require us to do.
> >
> > But there is no good reason to forward this to the L1 guest if
> > L2 generates the "I'm on the wrong implementation". KVM can fix
> > it up in place and return to L2 directly, as if the physical CPU
> > was able to implement both options.
> >
> > Conversely, allowing L1 to clear HCRX_EL2.MCE2 is counter-productive,
> > and violates the abstraction that KVM aims to give.
>
> What abstraction? :-)
>
> At least in the non-nested case we can blame the VMM since it's
> responsible for scheduling vCPUs on the right pCPUs in a heterogeneous
> system.
The problem is that there is no ID register describing which
architectural option is implemented on a given CPU.
> There is a subtlety here where if the VMM does the right thing with
> sched affinities then a MOPS exception taken from L2 is definitely the
> L1's fault and architecturally visible.
How? It isn't discoverable the first place. And migration breaks this
entirely. The whole A/B thing is an absolute disaster.
>
> But oh well. We're obviously oriented towards presenting a homogeneous
> set of vCPUs and anything else works by accident.
>
> > Implement this behaviour by never allowing the guest's view of
> > HCRX_EL2.MCE2 to make it into the HW, and document that KVM is in
> > charge of the A/B handling.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
>
> Reviewed-by: Oliver Upton <oupton@kernel.org>
Thanks!
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-28 9:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-26 8:26 [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Don't let a guest overwrite HCRX_EL2.MCE2 Marc Zyngier
2026-10-26 11:50 ` Fuad Tabba
2026-10-28 0:12 ` Oliver Upton
2026-10-28 9:38 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=86o6cexiz1.wl-maz@kernel.org \
--to=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=fuad.tabba@linux.dev \
--cc=joey.gouly@arm.com \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=oupton@kernel.org \
--cc=seiden@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=yuzenghui@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox