From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E5FCD12D73 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2025 14:58:22 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Cc:To:From:Message-ID:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=+B38H298B4jXy1yqI6ZnGVHLolk0EWpA8KzXhwcB1cs=; b=CWf48uncke6713FRUjELko1/lD 0h5VyRp/PheTx3SbAEd/n31XyA/un3bxf5fCbSjvwlGFvpOoZi9YJvtYFtdCJQR5NTeMyOaOfHxUU ZCcufmVTXyE3bTZi7nRnZJem9KVbRyVpg9sWZz3H5PCN8LZbeIx/VoevgiefGSfZvXmD+1g8gm4Pa AhfTVPeym/V3awwwsZhbnGlHiTh7t3rrx6xuSawZMWr/KTDZpJOu+qAmQg1Oyek7qjBCnxmGhYAbg gBYJlrxpC9jOUQvhYtgI4pyfSdzpu5+KNM5BqmbnI3/a7d9OTMrV9d7Ev/z+C1uEoTz6vT3aO0/VZ SIVj5XEA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1vQoJ8-00000006fx9-2lDj; Wed, 03 Dec 2025 14:58:18 +0000 Received: from tor.source.kernel.org ([2600:3c04:e001:324:0:1991:8:25]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1vQoJ7-00000006fx3-1PuO for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2025 14:58:17 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by tor.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 753716015C; Wed, 3 Dec 2025 14:58:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 05D61C4CEF5; Wed, 3 Dec 2025 14:58:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1764773896; bh=q6xtpA3Ne2GVQqviQ2yAHz9kGWrU02LdKiLnietBFIE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ms/BIW2TEXNMnkHQTbPaWXCYSz3tauK7A+HNvqrzAb6MzYchMz0KqwBFZB1QwFFJW 9h65GWCFVSGruHbIZJwHnLlfLjKs7Yz43XR6mgRw9r1mHNQMIKU9EkwVCLuQjAQjGX tnYE3bjlantv4+044UjudWVA0KJkiEe5naRmuKHvUXfl+aeY5EQuip2Nue4q2R2cSH Fr/tmaF+3bFxMInlQ8gDb5If0+LnHbPD4+spZ02YOgpywW/tm4oxT9bLDEDhkXOsf/ TVrCP0JomwlN26c+cGx5K4G8gGf85/3uZ/xOJDEgEii+NjWZP35lRYbQvjuf5j7rOz KRyUzlbnhul8g== Received: from sofa.misterjones.org ([185.219.108.64] helo=goblin-girl.misterjones.org) by disco-boy.misterjones.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1vQoJ3-0000000AD00-3BQL; Wed, 03 Dec 2025 14:58:13 +0000 Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2025 14:58:13 +0000 Message-ID: <86h5u7pq7u.wl-maz@kernel.org> From: Marc Zyngier To: Alexandru Elisei Cc: kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Joey Gouly , Suzuki K Poulose , Oliver Upton , Zenghui Yu Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] KVM: arm64: Convert VTCR_EL2 to config-driven sanitisation In-Reply-To: References: <20251129144525.2609207-1-maz@kernel.org> <20251129144525.2609207-5-maz@kernel.org> <86ikenpvna.wl-maz@kernel.org> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue) FLIM-LB/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL-LB/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/30.1 (aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 185.219.108.64 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: alexandru.elisei@arm.com, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, joey.gouly@arm.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, oupton@kernel.org, yuzenghui@huawei.com X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: maz@kernel.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on disco-boy.misterjones.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Wed, 03 Dec 2025 14:03:51 +0000, Alexandru Elisei wrote: > > Hi Marc, > > On Wed, Dec 03, 2025 at 01:00:57PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > On Wed, 03 Dec 2025 11:44:14 +0000, > > Alexandru Elisei wrote: > > > > > > Hi Marc, > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 29, 2025 at 02:45:25PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > > > Describe all the VTCR_EL2 fields and their respective configurations, > > > > making sure that we correctly ignore the bits that are not defined > > > > for a given guest configuration. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier > > > > --- > > > > arch/arm64/kvm/config.c | 69 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > arch/arm64/kvm/nested.c | 3 +- > > > > 2 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/config.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/config.c > > > > index a02c28d6a61c9..c36e133c51912 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/config.c > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/config.c > > > > @@ -141,6 +141,7 @@ struct reg_feat_map_desc { > > > > #define FEAT_AA64EL1 ID_AA64PFR0_EL1, EL1, IMP > > > > #define FEAT_AA64EL2 ID_AA64PFR0_EL1, EL2, IMP > > > > #define FEAT_AA64EL3 ID_AA64PFR0_EL1, EL3, IMP > > > > +#define FEAT_SEL2 ID_AA64PFR0_EL1, SEL2, IMP > > > > #define FEAT_AIE ID_AA64MMFR3_EL1, AIE, IMP > > > > #define FEAT_S2POE ID_AA64MMFR3_EL1, S2POE, IMP > > > > #define FEAT_S1POE ID_AA64MMFR3_EL1, S1POE, IMP > > > > @@ -202,6 +203,8 @@ struct reg_feat_map_desc { > > > > #define FEAT_ASID2 ID_AA64MMFR4_EL1, ASID2, IMP > > > > #define FEAT_MEC ID_AA64MMFR3_EL1, MEC, IMP > > > > #define FEAT_HAFT ID_AA64MMFR1_EL1, HAFDBS, HAFT > > > > +#define FEAT_HDBSS ID_AA64MMFR1_EL1, HAFDBS, HDBSS > > > > +#define FEAT_HPDS2 ID_AA64MMFR1_EL1, HPDS, HPDS2 > > > > #define FEAT_BTI ID_AA64PFR1_EL1, BT, IMP > > > > #define FEAT_ExS ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1, EXS, IMP > > > > #define FEAT_IESB ID_AA64MMFR2_EL1, IESB, IMP > > > > @@ -219,6 +222,7 @@ struct reg_feat_map_desc { > > > > #define FEAT_FGT2 ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1, FGT, FGT2 > > > > #define FEAT_MTPMU ID_AA64DFR0_EL1, MTPMU, IMP > > > > #define FEAT_HCX ID_AA64MMFR1_EL1, HCX, IMP > > > > +#define FEAT_S2PIE ID_AA64MMFR3_EL1, S2PIE, IMP > > > > > > > > static bool not_feat_aa64el3(struct kvm *kvm) > > > > { > > > > @@ -362,6 +366,28 @@ static bool feat_pmuv3p9(struct kvm *kvm) > > > > return check_pmu_revision(kvm, V3P9); > > > > } > > > > > > > > +#define has_feat_s2tgran(k, s) \ > > > > + ((kvm_has_feat_enum(kvm, ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1, TGRAN##s##_2, TGRAN##s) && \ > > > > + !kvm_has_feat_enum(kvm, ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1, TGRAN##s, NI)) || \ > > > > > > Wouldn't that read better as kvm_has_feat(kvm, ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1, TGRAN##s, IMP)? > > > I think that would also be correct. > > > > Sure, I don't mind either way, > > > > > > > > > + kvm_has_feat(kvm, ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1, TGRAN##s##_2, IMP)) > > > > > > A bit unexpected to treat the same field first as an enum, then as an integer, > > > but it saves one line. > > > > It potentially saves more if the encoding grows over time. I don't > > think it matters. > > Doesn't, was just aestethics and saves someone having to check the values to > make sure it wasn't an error. > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > +static bool feat_lpa2(struct kvm *kvm) > > > > +{ > > > > + return ((kvm_has_feat(kvm, ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1, TGRAN4, 52_BIT) || > > > > + !kvm_has_feat(kvm, ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1, TGRAN4, IMP)) && > > > > + (kvm_has_feat(kvm, ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1, TGRAN16, 52_BIT) || > > > > + !kvm_has_feat(kvm, ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1, TGRAN16, IMP)) && > > > > + (kvm_has_feat(kvm, ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1, TGRAN4_2, 52_BIT) || > > > > + !has_feat_s2tgran(kvm, 4)) && > > > > + (kvm_has_feat(kvm, ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1, TGRAN16_2, 52_BIT) || > > > > + !has_feat_s2tgran(kvm, 16))); > > > > +} > > > > > > That was a doozy, but looks correct to me if the intention was to have the check > > > as relaxed as possible - i.e, a VM can advertise 52 bit support for one granule, > > > but not the other (same for stage 1 and stage 2). > > > > Not quite. The intent is that, for all the possible granules, at all > > the possible stages, either the granule size isn't implemented at all, > > or it supports 52 bits. I think this covers it, but as you said, this > > is a bit of a bran fsck. > > Hm... this sounds like something that should be sanitised in > set_id_aa64mmfr0_el1(). Sorry, but I just can't tell if TGran{4,16,64} are > writable by userspace. Everything in ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1 is writable, except for ASIDBITS. > > > > > This is essentially a transliteration of the MRS: > > > > (FEAT_LPA2 && FEAT_S2TGran4K) <=> (UInt(ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1.TGran4_2) >= 3)) > > (FEAT_LPA2 && FEAT_S2TGran16K) <=> (UInt(ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1.TGran16_2) >= 3)) > > (FEAT_LPA2 && FEAT_TGran4K) <=> (SInt(ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1.TGran4) >= 1)) > > (FEAT_LPA2 && FEAT_TGran16K) <=> (UInt(ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1.TGran16) >= 2)) > > FEAT_S2TGran4K <=> (((UInt(ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1.TGran4_2) == 0) && FEAT_TGran4K) || (UInt(ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1.TGran4_2) >= 2)) > > FEAT_S2TGran16K <=> (((UInt(ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1.TGran16_2) == 0) && FEAT_TGran16K) || (UInt(ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1.TGran16_2) >= 2)) > > FEAT_TGran4K <=> (SInt(ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1.TGran4) >= 0) > > FEAT_TGran16K <=> (UInt(ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1.TGran16) >= 1) > > How about (untested): > > static bool feat_lpas2(struct kvm *kvm) > { > if (kvm_has_feat_exact(kvm, ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1, TGRAN4, IMP) || > kvm_has_feat_exact(kvm, ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1, TGRAN16, IMP) || > kvm_has_feat_exact(kvm, ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1, TGRAN4_2, IMP) || > kvm_has_feat_exact(kvm, ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1, TGRAN16_2, IMP)) > return false; > > return true; > } The combination (TGRAN4=NI, TGRAN2_4=TGRAN4, TGRAN16=52_BIT, TGRAN16_2=52_BIT) is a valid LPA2 configuration, which the test above rejects. > where, in case there's not something similar already and I just don't know about > it: > > #define kvm_has_feat_exact(kvm, id, fld, val) \ > kvm_cmp_feat(kvm, id, fld, =, val) #define __kvm_has_feat_enum(kvm, id, fld, val) \ kvm_cmp_feat_unsigned(kvm, id, fld, ==, val) #define kvm_has_feat_enum(kvm, ...) __kvm_has_feat_enum(kvm, __VA_ARGS__) > The idea being that if one of the granules does not support 52 bit, then it's > not supported by any of the other granules. See above why I think your proposal doesn't work. Thanks, M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.