[PATCH v3 02/28] arm64: KVM: Hide unsupported AArch64 CPU features from guests

[cdall@linaro.org (Christoffer Dall)]

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 03:45:10PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 03:20:26PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 03:08:40PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > On 17/10/17 14:51, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 07:38:19PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > >> +/* sys_reg_desc initialiser for known cpufeature ID registers */
> > > >> +#define ID_SANITISED(name) {			\
> > > >> +	SYS_DESC(SYS_##name),			\
> > > >> +	.access	= access_id_reg,		\
> > > >> +	.get_user = get_id_reg,			\
> > > >> +	.set_user = set_id_reg,			\
> > > >> +}
> > > >> +
> > > >> +/*
> > > >> + * sys_reg_desc initialiser for architecturally unallocated cpufeature ID
> > > >> + * register with encoding Op0=3, Op1=0, CRn=0, CRm=crm, Op2=op2
> > > >> + * (1 <= crm < 8, 0 <= Op2 < 8).
> > > >> + */
> > > >> +#define ID_UNALLOCATED(crm, op2) {			\
> > > >> +	Op0(3), Op1(0), CRn(0), CRm(crm), Op2(op2),	\
> > > >> +	.access = access_raz_id_reg,			\
> > > >> +	.get_user = get_raz_id_reg,			\
> > > >> +	.set_user = set_raz_id_reg,			\
> > > >> +}
> > > >> +
> > > >> +/*
> > > >> + * sys_reg_desc initialiser for known ID registers that we hide from guests.
> > > >> + * For now, these are exposed just like unallocated ID regs: they appear
> > > >> + * RAZ for the guest.
> > > >> + */
> > > > 
> > > > What is a hidden ID register as opposed to an unallocated one?
> > > 
> > > A hidden register is one where all the features have been removed (RAZ),
> > > making it similar to an unallocated one.
> > > 
> > > > Shouldn't one of them presumably cause an undefined exception in the
> > > > guest?
> > > 
> > > No, that'd be a violation of the architecture. The unallocated ID
> > > registers are required to be RAZ (see table D9-2 in D9.3.1), so that
> > > software can probe for feature without running the risk of getting an UNDEF.
> > > 
> > Then I'm not really sure why we need the two defines.  Is that just to
> > make it clear what the different rationales for dealing with various
> > registers in the same way are?
> 
> Basically yes.
> 
> ID_HIDDEN() means we are bodging around something that we don't know
> how to sanitise, whereas ID_UNALLOCATED() means that we follow the
> architecture in returning zero for reads (maybe following an older
> architecture version than the silicon).  
> 
> ID_HIDDEN()s may need to evolve SoC-specific quirkage if we need to
> expose non-architectural SoC-specific features via the mechanism.
> These should never simply be exposed unless the architecture is
> tightened in the future in such a way as to make this safe (unlikely).
> 
> ID_UNALLOCATED()s OTOH will mostly turn into ID_SANITISED() as the
> architecture gains new features.  The architecture could allocate new
> IMP DEF feature regs though, in which case they would become ID_HIDDEN()
> as soon as we know about them.
> 
> 
> The distinction is drawn in attempt to help maintainers: the future
> maintenance requirements for IN_UNALLOCATED()s will differ from
> ID_HIDDEN()s.
> 

Thanks for the explanation.
-Christoffer