Re: [PATCH v6 12/64] KVM: arm64: nv: Add non-VHE-EL2->EL1 translation helpers

Alexandru Elisei
2022-02-04T12:06:38Z

Hi Marc,

On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 06:29:13PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Feb 2022 17:08:26 +0000,
> Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Marc,
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 12:18:20PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > Some EL2 system registers immediately affect the current execution
> > > of the system, so we need to use their respective EL1 counterparts.
> > > For this we need to define a mapping between the two. In general,
> > > this only affects non-VHE guest hypervisors, as VHE system registers
> > > are compatible with the EL1 counterparts.
> > >
> > > These helpers will get used in subsequent patches.
> > >
> > > Co-developed-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> > > ---
> > > arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_nested.h | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_nested.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_nested.h
> > > index fd601ea68d13..5a85be6d8eb3 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_nested.h
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_nested.h
> > > @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
> > > #ifndef __ARM64_KVM_NESTED_H
> > > #define __ARM64_KVM_NESTED_H
> > >
> > > +#include <linux/bitfield.h>
> > > #include <linux/kvm_host.h>
> > >
> > > static inline bool vcpu_has_nv(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > @@ -11,4 +12,57 @@ static inline bool vcpu_has_nv(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_HAS_EL2, vcpu->arch.features));
> > > }
> > >
> > > +/* Translation helpers from non-VHE EL2 to EL1 */
> > > +static inline u64 tcr_el2_ps_to_tcr_el1_ips(u64 tcr_el2)
> > > +{
> > > + return (u64)FIELD_GET(TCR_EL2_PS_MASK, tcr_el2) << TCR_IPS_SHIFT;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline u64 translate_tcr_el2_to_tcr_el1(u64 tcr)
> > > +{
> > > + return TCR_EPD1_MASK | /* disable TTBR1_EL1 */
> > > + ((tcr & TCR_EL2_TBI) ? TCR_TBI0 : 0) |
> > > + tcr_el2_ps_to_tcr_el1_ips(tcr) |
> > > + (tcr & TCR_EL2_TG0_MASK) |
> > > + (tcr & TCR_EL2_ORGN0_MASK) |
> > > + (tcr & TCR_EL2_IRGN0_MASK) |
> > > + (tcr & TCR_EL2_T0SZ_MASK);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline u64 translate_cptr_el2_to_cpacr_el1(u64 cptr_el2)
> > > +{
> > > + u64 cpacr_el1 = 0;
> > > +
> > > + if (cptr_el2 & CPTR_EL2_TTA)
> > > + cpacr_el1 |= CPACR_EL1_TTA;
> > > + if (!(cptr_el2 & CPTR_EL2_TFP))
> > > + cpacr_el1 |= CPACR_EL1_FPEN;
> > > + if (!(cptr_el2 & CPTR_EL2_TZ))
> > > + cpacr_el1 |= CPACR_EL1_ZEN;
> > > +
> > > + return cpacr_el1;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline u64 translate_sctlr_el2_to_sctlr_el1(u64 val)
> > > +{
> > > + /* Only preserve the minimal set of bits we support */
> > > + val &= (SCTLR_ELx_M | SCTLR_ELx_A | SCTLR_ELx_C | SCTLR_ELx_SA |
> > > + SCTLR_ELx_I | SCTLR_ELx_IESB | SCTLR_ELx_WXN | SCTLR_ELx_EE);
> >
> > Checked that the bit positions are the same between SCTLR_EL2 and SCTLR_EL1. I
> > think the IESB bit (bit 21) should be after the WXN bit (bit 19) to be
> > consistent; doesn't really matter either way.
> >
> > > + val |= SCTLR_EL1_RES1;
> > > +
> > > + return val;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline u64 translate_ttbr0_el2_to_ttbr0_el1(u64 ttbr0)
> > > +{
> > > + /* Clear the ASID field */
> > > + return ttbr0 & ~GENMASK_ULL(63, 48);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline u64 translate_cnthctl_el2_to_cntkctl_el1(u64 cnthctl)
> > > +{
> > > + return ((FIELD_GET(CNTHCTL_EL1PCTEN | CNTHCTL_EL1PCEN, cnthctl) << 10) |
> > > + (cnthctl & (CNTHCTL_EVNTI | CNTHCTL_EVNTDIR | CNTHCTL_EVNTEN)));
> >
> > I asked about the field positions in the previous series and this is what you
> > replied:
> >
> > > It's a classic one. Remember that we are running VHE, and remapping a
> > > nVHE view of CNTHCTL_EL2 into the VHE view *for the guest*, and that
> > > these things are completely shifted around (it has the CNTKCTL_EL1
> > > format).
> > >
> > > For example, on nVHE, CNTHCTL_EL2.EL1PCTEN is bit 0. On nVHE, this is
> > > bit 10. That's why we have this shift, and that you now need some
> > > paracetamol.
> > >
> > > You can also look at the way we deal with the same stuff in
> > > kvm_timer_init_vhe()".
> >
> > Here's how this function is used in vhe/sysreg-sr.c:
> >
> > static void __sysreg_restore_vel2_state(struct kvm_cpu_context *ctxt)
> > {
> > [..]
> > if (__vcpu_el2_e2h_is_set(ctxt)) {
> > [..]
> > } else {
> > [..]
> > val = translate_cnthctl_el2_to_cntkctl_el1(ctxt_sys_reg(ctxt, CNTHCTL_EL2));
> > write_sysreg_el1(val, SYS_CNTKCTL);
> > }
> > [..]
> > }
> >
> > CNTHCTL_EL2 is a pure EL2 register. The translate function is called
> > when guest HCR_EL2.E2H is not set, therefore virtual CNTHCTL_EL2 has
> > the non-VHE format. And the result of the function is used to write
> > to the hardware CNTKCTL_EL1 register (using the CNTKCTL_EL12
> > encoding), which is different from the CNTHCTL_EL2
> > register. CNTKCTL_EL1 also always has the same format regardless of
> > the value of the HCR_EL2.E2H bit.
> >
> > I don't understand what the host running with VHE has to do with the
> > translate function.
>
> It's just that I completely misunderstood your question, and that I
> also failed to realise that this code is just plain buggy. Apologies
> for wasting your time on this.
>
> As it turns out, CNTHCTL_EL2 has *zero* influence on the hypervisor
> itself, so messing with it and trying to restore it into CNTKCTL_EL12
> is remarkably pointless. It is solely designed to influence the
> execution of EL1. Duh.

Hmm... it looks to me like the EVENTI and EVENTDIR fields in CNTHCTL_EL2 do have
an effect on the hypervisor. Unfortunately, the control the generation of events
from the *physical* counter, while the fields EVENTI and EVENTDIR from CNTKCTL_EL1
control the generation of events from the the *virtual* counter.

KVM cannot program CNTKCTL_EL1 to get the same effect as what the L1 hypervisor
intended by programming CNTHCTL_EL2, so I think it must program the
corresponding physical CNTHCTL_EL2 fields when running the L1 guest.

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Alex

>
> What it should do is to restore parts of this register *on the host*
> so that L1's EL1 is actually influenced by what L1's EL2 has set up
> (mostly to handle traps from EL1 to EL2).
>
> To summarise:
>
> - the name of the function is misleading: it should be something like
> 'translate_nvhe_cnthctl_el2_to_vhe()'. The function is otherwise
> correct, and why I was rambling about the bit offsets.
>
> - the location of the save/restore is wrong: it should happen when
> dealing with EL1 instead of EL2
>
> - the register it targets is wrong: it should target CNTHTL_EL2 (or
> CNTKCTL_EL1 as seen from VHE EL2)
>
> I'll stick a brown paper bag on my head and wear it for the evening.
>
> Thanks,
>
> M.
>
> --
> Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.