Re: [PATCH 16/16] KVM: arm64: pkvm: Unshare guest structs during teardown

From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>
Cc: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Fuad Tabba <tabba@google.com>,
	David Brazdil <dbrazdil@google.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/16] KVM: arm64: pkvm: Unshare guest structs during teardown
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 18:12:22 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3ec8ab06f9950a13818109051835fdb9@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YW1+mQ6Bn2HXwl34@google.com>

On 2021-10-18 15:03, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Monday 18 Oct 2021 at 11:32:13 (+0100), Quentin Perret wrote:
>> Another option is to take a refcount on 'current' from
>> kvm_arch_vcpu_run_map_fp() before sharing thread-specific structs with
>> the hyp and release the refcount of the previous task after unsharing.
>> But that means we'll have to also drop the refcount when the vcpu
>> gets destroyed, as well as explicitly unshare at that point. Shouldn't
>> be too bad I think. Thoughts?
> 
> Something like the below seems to work OK on my setup, including
> SIGKILL'ing the guest and such. How much do you hate it?

It is annoyingly elegant! Small nitpick below.

> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index f8be56d5342b..50598d704c71 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -322,6 +322,7 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_arch {
> 
>  	struct thread_info *host_thread_info;	/* hyp VA */
>  	struct user_fpsimd_state *host_fpsimd_state;	/* hyp VA */
> +	struct task_struct *parent_task;
> 
>  	struct {
>  		/* {Break,watch}point registers */
> @@ -738,6 +739,7 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_run_map_fp(struct kvm_vcpu 
> *vcpu);
>  void kvm_arch_vcpu_load_fp(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>  void kvm_arch_vcpu_ctxsync_fp(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>  void kvm_arch_vcpu_put_fp(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> +void kvm_vcpu_unshare_task_fp(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> 
>  static inline bool kvm_pmu_counter_deferred(struct perf_event_attr 
> *attr)
>  {
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/fpsimd.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/fpsimd.c
> index 2fe1128d9f3d..27afeebbe1cb 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/fpsimd.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/fpsimd.c
> @@ -15,6 +15,22 @@
>  #include <asm/kvm_mmu.h>
>  #include <asm/sysreg.h>
> 
> +void kvm_vcpu_unshare_task_fp(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> +	struct task_struct *p = vcpu->arch.parent_task;
> +	struct user_fpsimd_state *fpsimd;
> +	struct thread_info *ti;
> +
> +	if (!static_branch_likely(&kvm_protected_mode_initialized) || !p)

Shouldn't this be a check on is_protected_kvm_enabled() instead?
The two should be equivalent outside of the initialisation code...

Otherwise, ship it.

         M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel