Re: [PATCH 3/6] KVM: arm64: Add pre_fault_memory implementation

Oliver Upton
2025-09-30T00:54:06Z

On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 02:59:35PM +0100, Thomson, Jack wrote:
> Hi Oliver,
>
> Thanks for reviewing!
>
> On 11/09/2025 7:42 pm, Oliver Upton wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 02:46:45PM +0100, Jack Thomson wrote:
> > > @@ -1607,7 +1611,7 @@ static int __user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
> > > struct kvm_s2_trans *nested,
> > > struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
> > > long *page_size, unsigned long hva,
> > > - bool fault_is_perm)
> > > + bool fault_is_perm, bool pre_fault)
> > > {
> > > int ret = 0;
> > > bool topup_memcache;
> > > @@ -1631,10 +1635,13 @@ static int __user_mem_abort(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, phys_addr_t fault_ipa,
> > > vm_flags_t vm_flags;
> > > enum kvm_pgtable_walk_flags flags = KVM_PGTABLE_WALK_MEMABORT_FLAGS;
> > > + if (pre_fault)
> > > + flags |= KVM_PGTABLE_WALK_PRE_FAULT;
> > > +
> > > if (fault_is_perm)
> > > fault_granule = kvm_vcpu_trap_get_perm_fault_granule(vcpu);
> > > - write_fault = kvm_is_write_fault(vcpu);
> > > - exec_fault = kvm_vcpu_trap_is_exec_fault(vcpu);
> > > + write_fault = !pre_fault && kvm_is_write_fault(vcpu);
> > > + exec_fault = !pre_fault && kvm_vcpu_trap_is_exec_fault(vcpu);
> >
> > I'm not a fan of this. While user_mem_abort() is already a sloppy mess,
> > one thing we could reliably assume is the presence of a valid fault
> > context. Now we need to remember to special-case our interpretation of a
> > fault on whether or not we're getting invoked for a pre-fault.
> >
> > I'd rather see the pre-fault infrastructure compose a synthetic fault
> > context (HPFAR_EL2, ESR_EL2, etc.). It places the complexity where it
> > belongs and the rest of the abort handling code should 'just work'.
> >
>
> Agreed, it looks much better with the synthetic abort. Is this the
> approach you had in mind?

Pretty much. Thanks for taking a moment to fiddle with it.

> +long kvm_arch_vcpu_pre_fault_memory(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> + struct kvm_pre_fault_memory *range)
> +{
> + int ret, idx;
> + hva_t hva;
> + phys_addr_t end;
> + u64 esr, hpfar;
> + struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot;
> + struct kvm_vcpu_fault_info *fault_info;
> +
> + long page_size = PAGE_SIZE;
> + phys_addr_t ipa = range->gpa;
> + gfn_t gfn = gpa_to_gfn(range->gpa);
> +
> + idx = srcu_read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->srcu);
> +
> + if (ipa >= kvm_phys_size(vcpu->arch.hw_mmu)) {
> + ret = -ENOENT;
> + goto out_unlock;
> + }
> +
> + memslot = gfn_to_memslot(vcpu->kvm, gfn);
> + if (!memslot) {
> + ret = -ENOENT;
> + goto out_unlock;
> + }
> +
> + fault_info = &vcpu->arch.fault;
> +
> + esr = fault_info->esr_el2;
> + hpfar = fault_info->hpfar_el2;

nit: Just snapshot the entire struct, makes this forward-compatible with
new fields showing up.

> +
> + fault_info->esr_el2 = ESR_ELx_FSC_ACCESS_L(KVM_PGTABLE_LAST_LEVEL);

A translation fault would be a more accurate representation what you're
trying to do Access flag faults aren't expected in user_mem_abort() and
instead handled in handle_access_fault().

You're also missing the rest of the ESR fields that are relevant here,
such as ESR_ELx.EC which would actually indicate a data abort. I think
you'd also want to communicate this as a nISV fault (i.e.
ESR_ELx.ISV=0).

> + fault_info->hpfar_el2 = HPFAR_EL2_NS |
> + ((ipa >> (12 - HPFAR_EL2_FIPA_SHIFT)) & HPFAR_EL2_FIPA_MASK);

FIELD_PREP()?

> +
> + if (kvm_slot_has_gmem(memslot)) {
> + ret = gmem_abort(vcpu, ipa, NULL, memslot, false);
> + } else {
> + hva = gfn_to_hva_memslot_prot(memslot, gfn, NULL);
> + if (kvm_is_error_hva(hva)) {
> + ret = -EFAULT;
> + goto out;
> + }
> + ret = user_mem_abort(vcpu, ipa, NULL, memslot, &page_size, hva,
> + false);
> + }
> +
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto out;
> +
> + end = (range->gpa & ~(page_size - 1)) + page_size;
> + ret = min(range->size, end - range->gpa);
> +
> +out:
> + fault_info->esr_el2 = esr;
> + fault_info->hpfar_el2 = hpfar;
> +out_unlock:
> + srcu_read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->srcu, idx);
> + return ret;
> +}

Thanks,
Oliver