From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 5/8] KVM: arm64: Explicitly handle MDSELR_EL1 traps as UNDEFINED
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:05:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <86mspysuw8.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5a2a74b3-f6cd-4cb6-8ee8-5dd7dc2bd686@arm.com>
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 03:41:23 +0100,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/5/24 15:45, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Fri, 05 Apr 2024 09:00:05 +0100,
> > Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Currently read_sanitised_id_aa64dfr0_el1() caps the ID_AA64DFR0.DebugVer to
> >> ID_AA64DFR0_DebugVer_V8P8, resulting in FEAT_Debugv8p9 not being exposed to
> >> the guest. MDSELR_EL1 register access in the guest, is currently trapped by
> >> the existing configuration of the fine-grained traps.
> >
> > Please add support for the HDFGxTR2_EL2 registers in the trap routing
> > arrays, add support for the corresponding FGUs in the corresponding
>
> Afraid that I might not have enough background here to sufficiently understand
> your suggestion above, but nonetheless here is an attempt in this regard.
Thanks for at least giving it a try, this is *MUCH* appreciated.
>
> - Add HDFGRTR2_EL2/HDFGWTR2_EL2 to enum vcpu_sysreg
> enum vcpu_sysreg {
> ..........
> VNCR(HDFGRTR2_EL2),
> VNCR(HDFGWTR2_EL2),
> ..........
> }
Yes.
>
> - Add their VNCR mappings addresses
>
> #define VNCR_HDFGRTR2_EL2 0x1A0
> #define VNCR_HDFGWTR2_EL2 0x1B0
Yes.
>
> - Add HDFGRTR2_EL2/HDFGWTR2_EL2 to sys_reg_descs[]
>
> static const struct sys_reg_desc sys_reg_descs[] = {
> ..........
> EL2_REG_VNCR(HDFGRTR2_EL2, reset_val, 0),
> EL2_REG_VNCR(HDFGWTR2_EL2, reset_val, 0),
> ..........
> }
Yes
>
> - Add HDFGRTR2_GROUP to enum fgt_group_id
> - Add HDFGRTR2_GROUP to reg_to_fgt_group_id()
> - Update triage_sysreg_trap() for HDFGRTR2_GROUP
> - Update __activate_traps_hfgxtr() both for HDFGRTR2_EL2 and HDFGWTR2_EL2
> - Updated __deactivate_traps_hfgxtr() both for HDFGRTR2_EL2 and HDFGWTR2_EL2
Yes. Don't miss check_fgt_bit() though. You also need to update
kvm_init_nv_sysregs() to ensure that these new registers have the
correct RES0/RES1 behaviour depending on the supported feature set for
the guest.
>
> > structure, and condition the UNDEF on the lack of *guest* support for
> > the feature.
>
> Does something like the following looks OK for preventing guest access into
> MDSELR_EL1 instead ?
>
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> @@ -1711,6 +1711,19 @@ static u64 read_sanitised_id_aa64dfr0_el1(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> return val;
> }
>
> +static bool trap_mdselr_el1(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> + struct sys_reg_params *p,
> + const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
> +{
> + u64 dfr0 = read_sanitised_id_aa64dfr0_el1(vcpu, r);
> + int dver = cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field(dfr0, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_DebugVer_SHIFT);
> +
> + if (dver != ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_DebugVer_V8P9)
> + return undef_access(vcpu, p, r);
This is very cumbersome, and we now have a much better infrastructure
for the stuff that is handled with FGTs, see below.
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> static int set_id_aa64dfr0_el1(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> const struct sys_reg_desc *rd,
> u64 val)
> @@ -2203,7 +2216,7 @@ static const struct sys_reg_desc sys_reg_descs[] = {
> { SYS_DESC(SYS_MDSCR_EL1), trap_debug_regs, reset_val, MDSCR_EL1, 0 },
> DBG_BCR_BVR_WCR_WVR_EL1(2),
> DBG_BCR_BVR_WCR_WVR_EL1(3),
> - { SYS_DESC(SYS_MDSELR_EL1), undef_access },
> + { SYS_DESC(SYS_MDSELR_EL1), trap_mdselr_el1 },
> DBG_BCR_BVR_WCR_WVR_EL1(4),
> DBG_BCR_BVR_WCR_WVR_EL1(5),
> DBG_BCR_BVR_WCR_WVR_EL1(6),
>
> I am sure this is rather incomplete, but will really appreciate if you could
> provide some details and pointers.
What is missing is the Fine-Grained-Undef part. You need to update
kvm_init_sysreg() so that kvm->arch.fgu[HDFGRTR2_GROUP] has all the
correct bits set for anything that needs to UNDEF depending on the
guest configuration.
For example, in your case, I'd expect to see something like:
if (!kvm_has_feat(kvm, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1, DebugVer, V8P9))
kvm->arch.fgu[HDFGRTR2_GROUP] |= ~(HDFGRTR2_EL2_nMDSELR_EL1 | [...]);
Then allowing the feature becomes conditioned on the bit being clear,
and the trap handler only needs to deal with the actual emulation, and
not the feature checking.
I appreciate that this is a lot to swallow, but I'd be very happy to
review patches implementing this and provide guidance. It is all
pretty simple, just that there is a lot of parts all over the place.
In the end, this is only about following the architecture.
Thanks again,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-12 11:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-05 8:00 [RFC 0/8] arm64/hw_breakpoint: Enable FEAT_Debugv8p9 Anshuman Khandual
2024-04-05 8:00 ` [RFC 1/8] arm64/sysreg: Add register fields for MDSELR_EL1 Anshuman Khandual
2024-04-05 12:52 ` Mark Brown
2024-04-05 8:00 ` [RFC 2/8] arm64/sysreg: Add register fields for HDFGRTR2_EL2 Anshuman Khandual
2024-04-05 12:59 ` Mark Brown
2024-04-05 8:00 ` [RFC 3/8] arm64/sysreg: Add register fields for HDFGWTR2_EL2 Anshuman Khandual
2024-04-05 13:08 ` Mark Brown
2024-04-05 8:00 ` [RFC 4/8] arm64/sysreg: Update ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1 register Anshuman Khandual
2024-04-05 13:16 ` Mark Brown
2024-04-05 8:00 ` [RFC 5/8] KVM: arm64: Explicitly handle MDSELR_EL1 traps as UNDEFINED Anshuman Khandual
2024-04-05 10:15 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-04-12 2:41 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-04-12 11:05 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2024-04-16 5:46 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-04-16 8:15 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-04-05 8:00 ` [RFC 6/8] arm64/cpufeature: Add field details for ID_AA64DFR1_EL1 register Anshuman Khandual
2024-04-05 8:00 ` [RFC 7/8] arm64/boot: Enable EL2 requirements for FEAT_Debugv8p9 Anshuman Khandual
2024-04-05 8:00 ` [RFC 8/8] arm64/hw_breakpoint: Enable FEAT_Debugv8p9 Anshuman Khandual
2024-04-05 10:26 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-04-16 3:13 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-04-16 3:54 ` [RFC 0/8] " Anshuman Khandual
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=86mspysuw8.wl-maz@kernel.org \
--to=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).