From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Oliver Upton <oupton@google.com>
Cc: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>,
Peter Shier <pshier@google.com>,
Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@google.com>,
Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] KVM: arm64: Allow the guest to change the OS Lock status
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 12:16:56 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87mtms9j2v.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211029003202.158161-3-oupton@google.com>
Hi Oliver,
On Fri, 29 Oct 2021 01:32:01 +0100,
Oliver Upton <oupton@google.com> wrote:
>
> KVM diverges from the architecture in the way it handles the OSLAR_EL1
> register. While the architecture requires that the register be WO and
> that the OSLK bit is 1 out of reset, KVM implements the register as
> RAZ/WI.
>
> Align KVM with the architecture by permitting writes to OSLAR_EL1. Since
> the register is WO, stash the OS Lock status bit in OSLSR_EL1 and
> context switch the status between host/guest. Additionally, change the
> reset value of the OSLK bit to 1.
>
> Suggested-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Oliver Upton <oupton@google.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/hyp/sysreg-sr.h | 5 +++++
> arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++++---
> 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/hyp/sysreg-sr.h b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/hyp/sysreg-sr.h
> index de7e14c862e6..a65dab34f85b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/hyp/sysreg-sr.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/hyp/sysreg-sr.h
> @@ -65,6 +65,8 @@ static inline void __sysreg_save_el1_state(struct kvm_cpu_context *ctxt)
> ctxt_sys_reg(ctxt, SP_EL1) = read_sysreg(sp_el1);
> ctxt_sys_reg(ctxt, ELR_EL1) = read_sysreg_el1(SYS_ELR);
> ctxt_sys_reg(ctxt, SPSR_EL1) = read_sysreg_el1(SYS_SPSR);
> +
> + ctxt_sys_reg(ctxt, OSLSR_EL1) = read_sysreg(oslsr_el1);
Why do we need to save/restore this outside of the debug context? It
seems to me that this is only needed if debug has been enabled by the
guest (KVM_ARM64_DEBUG_DIRTY being set), as we will have trapped the
OSLAR_EL1 access otherwise. I don't think we need to deal with this
register outside of this context, as debug exceptions cannot happen
otherwise (BRK excepted, of course).
> }
>
> static inline void __sysreg_save_el2_return_state(struct kvm_cpu_context *ctxt)
> @@ -149,6 +151,9 @@ static inline void __sysreg_restore_el1_state(struct kvm_cpu_context *ctxt)
> write_sysreg(ctxt_sys_reg(ctxt, SP_EL1), sp_el1);
> write_sysreg_el1(ctxt_sys_reg(ctxt, ELR_EL1), SYS_ELR);
> write_sysreg_el1(ctxt_sys_reg(ctxt, SPSR_EL1), SYS_SPSR);
> +
> + /* restore OSLSR_EL1 by writing the OSLK bit to OSLAR_EL1 */
> + write_sysreg((ctxt_sys_reg(ctxt, OSLSR_EL1) >> 1) & 1, oslar_el1);
Please introduce some eye-pleasing bit definitions ("Here, there, and
everywhere", to quote someone famous).
> }
>
> static inline void __sysreg_restore_el2_return_state(struct kvm_cpu_context *ctxt)
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> index 0eb03e7508fe..0840ae081290 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> @@ -298,6 +298,22 @@ static bool trap_oslsr_el1(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> return true;
> }
>
> +static bool trap_oslar_el1(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> + struct sys_reg_params *p,
> + const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
> +{
> + u64 oslsr;
> +
> + if (!p->is_write)
> + return read_zero(vcpu, p);
This really should be an UNDEF (and it really should UNDEF in HW, but
we are being, maybe pointlessly, cautious).
> +
> + /* preserve all but the OSLK bit */
> + oslsr = vcpu_read_sys_reg(vcpu, OSLSR_EL1) & ~0x2ull;
> + vcpu_write_sys_reg(vcpu, OSLSR_EL1, oslsr | ((p->regval & 1) << 1));
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> +
Extra newline.
> static bool trap_dbgauthstatus_el1(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> struct sys_reg_params *p,
> const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
> @@ -1439,8 +1455,8 @@ static const struct sys_reg_desc sys_reg_descs[] = {
> DBG_BCR_BVR_WCR_WVR_EL1(15),
>
> { SYS_DESC(SYS_MDRAR_EL1), trap_raz_wi },
> - { SYS_DESC(SYS_OSLAR_EL1), trap_raz_wi },
> - { SYS_DESC(SYS_OSLSR_EL1), trap_oslsr_el1, reset_val, OSLSR_EL1, 0x00000008 },
> + { SYS_DESC(SYS_OSLAR_EL1), trap_oslar_el1 },
> + { SYS_DESC(SYS_OSLSR_EL1), trap_oslsr_el1, reset_val, OSLSR_EL1, 0x0000000A },
> { SYS_DESC(SYS_OSDLR_EL1), trap_raz_wi },
> { SYS_DESC(SYS_DBGPRCR_EL1), trap_raz_wi },
> { SYS_DESC(SYS_DBGCLAIMSET_EL1), trap_raz_wi },
> @@ -1912,7 +1928,7 @@ static const struct sys_reg_desc cp14_regs[] = {
>
> DBGBXVR(0),
> /* DBGOSLAR */
> - { Op1( 0), CRn( 1), CRm( 0), Op2( 4), trap_raz_wi },
> + { Op1( 0), CRn( 1), CRm( 0), Op2( 4), trap_oslar_el1 },
> DBGBXVR(1),
> /* DBGOSLSR */
> { Op1( 0), CRn( 1), CRm( 1), Op2( 4), trap_oslsr_el1, NULL, OSLSR_EL1 },
Thanks,
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:[~2021-10-29 11:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-29 0:31 [PATCH 0/3] KVM: arm64: Fixes for the exposed debug architecture Oliver Upton
2021-10-29 0:32 ` [PATCH 1/3] KVM: arm64: Stash OSLSR_EL1 in the cpu context Oliver Upton
2021-10-29 11:27 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-10-29 0:32 ` [PATCH 2/3] KVM: arm64: Allow the guest to change the OS Lock status Oliver Upton
2021-10-29 11:16 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2021-10-29 0:32 ` [PATCH 3/3] KVM: arm64: Raise KVM's reported debug architecture to v8.2 Oliver Upton
2021-10-29 11:31 ` Marc Zyngier
2021-10-29 18:18 ` Oliver Upton
2021-11-01 10:21 ` Marc Zyngier
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=87mtms9j2v.wl-maz@kernel.org \
--to=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=alexandru.elisei@arm.com \
--cc=drjones@redhat.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=oupton@google.com \
--cc=pshier@google.com \
--cc=reijiw@google.com \
--cc=ricarkol@google.com \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
/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).