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 C6607D12D75 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2025 15:20:33 +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:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From: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=wJcdqxIsT+u0megtwIVsP3guFGwkXujN5UR/ZC3lTeg=; b=2boOpPj5Se7Re1RqLbrRTK2wy/ mh4dw98BwTT60H7WOx996yEPclOf4buUzka0USAb9ikhHpzApQp8TxIYiBbcN0t6JesKD7mULhjEI 5sDs878D/PbgrsD6lRtS7f1iZGxlJe0PxliHq4uSqGcsYvJV8oIiWCXh9Rg8SlUmcJnEIPwvECvpA 2BCVS/SzVWDwLSzYPD3tyX/JL5k5y6ItelnYg9sY1MloDIQy8+CflSPCvhzno4u8R5CcSK0hAp/G9 aX9mefMehvBBEZIZRcdVbfxIQTHBHGJv/yWalIn1FPTE3euXl97eYbAyZNAqENrsDRrJEA/pRIB9C cPDaZdCw==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1vQoeX-00000006h6U-22Zj; Wed, 03 Dec 2025 15:20:25 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1vQoeV-00000006h67-15E6 for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2025 15:20:25 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4147A339; Wed, 3 Dec 2025 07:20:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from raptor (usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com [172.31.20.19]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1881E3F59E; Wed, 3 Dec 2025 07:20:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2025 15:20:16 +0000 From: Alexandru Elisei To: Marc Zyngier 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 Message-ID: References: <20251129144525.2609207-1-maz@kernel.org> <20251129144525.2609207-5-maz@kernel.org> <86ikenpvna.wl-maz@kernel.org> <86h5u7pq7u.wl-maz@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <86h5u7pq7u.wl-maz@kernel.org> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20251203_072023_411128_B8A74C33 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 41.70 ) 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 Hi Marc, On Wed, Dec 03, 2025 at 02:58:13PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > 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. Aaah, ok so a bit set in the 'mask' argument to ID_FILTERED means the bit is writable (the comment for ID_FILTERED doesn't explain that). > > > > > > > > > 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. Thank you for taking the time to entertain my comments. It's not clear to me why the combination is rejected since there are no IMP values in your example, but I trust your judgement and I don't want to waste your time on nitpicking. My Reviewed-by stands, by the way, in case that wasn't clear. Thanks, Alex