[PATCH v2 6/9] arm64: KVM: Treat sysreg accessors returning false as successful

[cdall@linaro.org (Christoffer Dall)]

On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 05:03:42PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Instead of considering that a sysreg accessor has failed when
> returning false, let's consider that it is *always* successful
> (after all, we won't stand for an incomplete emulation).

That's right!

> 
> The return value now simply indicates whether we should skip
> the instruction (because it has now been emulated), or if we
> should leave the PC alone if the emulation has injected an
> exception.

Reviewed-by: Christoffer Dall <cdall@linaro.org>

(I especially enjoy the much cleaner flow of emulate_sys_reg())

> 
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++----------------------------
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> index f80a61af5e88..4e5d4eee8cec 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> @@ -1571,6 +1571,22 @@ int kvm_handle_cp14_load_store(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
>  	return 1;
>  }
>  
> +static void perform_access(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> +			   struct sys_reg_params *params,
> +			   const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
> +{
> +	/*
> +	 * Not having an accessor means that we have configured a trap
> +	 * that we don't know how to handle. This certainly qualifies
> +	 * as a gross bug that should be fixed right away.
> +	 */
> +	BUG_ON(!r->access);
> +
> +	/* Skip instruction if instructed so */
> +	if (likely(r->access(vcpu, params, r)))
> +		kvm_skip_instr(vcpu, kvm_vcpu_trap_il_is32bit(vcpu));
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * emulate_cp --  tries to match a sys_reg access in a handling table, and
>   *                call the corresponding trap handler.
> @@ -1594,20 +1610,8 @@ static int emulate_cp(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>  	r = find_reg(params, table, num);
>  
>  	if (r) {
> -		/*
> -		 * Not having an accessor means that we have
> -		 * configured a trap that we don't know how to
> -		 * handle. This certainly qualifies as a gross bug
> -		 * that should be fixed right away.
> -		 */
> -		BUG_ON(!r->access);
> -
> -		if (likely(r->access(vcpu, params, r))) {
> -			/* Skip instruction, since it was emulated */
> -			kvm_skip_instr(vcpu, kvm_vcpu_trap_il_is32bit(vcpu));
> -			/* Handled */
> -			return 0;
> -		}
> +		perform_access(vcpu, params, r);
> +		return 0;
>  	}
>  
>  	/* Not handled */
> @@ -1777,26 +1781,13 @@ static int emulate_sys_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>  		r = find_reg(params, sys_reg_descs, ARRAY_SIZE(sys_reg_descs));
>  
>  	if (likely(r)) {
> -		/*
> -		 * Not having an accessor means that we have
> -		 * configured a trap that we don't know how to
> -		 * handle. This certainly qualifies as a gross bug
> -		 * that should be fixed right away.
> -		 */
> -		BUG_ON(!r->access);
> -
> -		if (likely(r->access(vcpu, params, r))) {
> -			/* Skip instruction, since it was emulated */
> -			kvm_skip_instr(vcpu, kvm_vcpu_trap_il_is32bit(vcpu));
> -			return 1;
> -		}
> -		/* If access function fails, it should complain. */
> +		perform_access(vcpu, params, r);
>  	} else {
>  		kvm_err("Unsupported guest sys_reg access at: %lx\n",
>  			*vcpu_pc(vcpu));
>  		print_sys_reg_instr(params);
> +		kvm_inject_undefined(vcpu);
>  	}
> -	kvm_inject_undefined(vcpu);
>  	return 1;
>  }
>  
> -- 
> 2.11.0
>