Re: [PATCH v7 17/45] arm64: RME: Handle realm enter/exit

Steven Price
2025-04-07T16:34:23Z

On 04/03/2025 01:03, Gavin Shan wrote:
> On 2/14/25 2:13 AM, Steven Price wrote:
>> Entering a realm is done using a SMC call to the RMM. On exit the
>> exit-codes need to be handled slightly differently to the normal KVM
>> path so define our own functions for realm enter/exit and hook them
>> in if the guest is a realm guest.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>
>> ---
>> Changes since v6:
>>   * Use vcpu_err() rather than pr_err/kvm_err when there is an associated
>>     vcpu to the error.
>>   * Return -EFAULT for KVM_EXIT_MEMORY_FAULT as per the documentation for
>>     this exit type.
>>   * Split code handling a RIPAS change triggered by the guest to the
>>     following patch.
>> Changes since v5:
>>   * For a RIPAS_CHANGE request from the guest perform the actual RIPAS
>>     change on next entry rather than immediately on the exit. This allows
>>     the VMM to 'reject' a RIPAS change by refusing to continue
>>     scheduling.
>> Changes since v4:
>>   * Rename handle_rme_exit() to handle_rec_exit()
>>   * Move the loop to copy registers into the REC enter structure from the
>>     to rec_exit_handlers callbacks to kvm_rec_enter(). This fixes a bug
>>     where the handler exits to user space and user space wants to modify
>>     the GPRS.
>>   * Some code rearrangement in rec_exit_ripas_change().
>> Changes since v2:
>>   * realm_set_ipa_state() now provides an output parameter for the
>>     top_iap that was changed. Use this to signal the VMM with the correct
>>     range that has been transitioned.
>>   * Adapt to previous patch changes.
>> ---
>>   arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_rme.h |   3 +
>>   arch/arm64/kvm/Makefile          |   2 +-
>>   arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c             |  19 +++-
>>   arch/arm64/kvm/rme-exit.c        | 171 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   arch/arm64/kvm/rme.c             |  19 ++++
>>   5 files changed, 208 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>   create mode 100644 arch/arm64/kvm/rme-exit.c
>>
>
> With below nitpicks addressed:
>
> Reviewed-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
>
> [...]
>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/rme-exit.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/rme-exit.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..aae1adefe1a3
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/rme-exit.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>> +/*
>> + * Copyright (C) 2023 ARM Ltd.
>> + */
>> +
>> +#include <linux/kvm_host.h>
>> +#include <kvm/arm_hypercalls.h>
>> +#include <kvm/arm_psci.h>
>> +
>> +#include <asm/rmi_smc.h>
>> +#include <asm/kvm_emulate.h>
>> +#include <asm/kvm_rme.h>
>> +#include <asm/kvm_mmu.h>
>> +
>> +typedef int (*exit_handler_fn)(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>> +
>
> Duplicated to exit_handler_fn, defined in handle_exit.c, need move the
> definition to header file.

While I get this is duplication, I'm a little reluctant to move it to a
header file because this is completely internal to each C file (the
xxx_exit_handler[] arrays are both static). If either side wants to e.g.
add an extra argument there shouldn't be a requirement to reflect that
change in the other.

Specifically I'm wondering if we're going to ever need to pass an RMI
return status into the rme-exit callbacks at some point.

>> +static int rec_exit_reason_notimpl(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> +{
>> +    struct realm_rec *rec = &vcpu->arch.rec;
>> +
>> +    vcpu_err(vcpu, "Unhandled exit reason from realm (ESR: %#llx)\n",
>> +         rec->run->exit.esr);
>> +    return -ENXIO;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int rec_exit_sync_dabt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> +{
>> +    return kvm_handle_guest_abort(vcpu);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int rec_exit_sync_iabt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> +{
>> +    struct realm_rec *rec = &vcpu->arch.rec;
>> +
>> +    vcpu_err(vcpu, "Unhandled instruction abort (ESR: %#llx).\n",
>> +         rec->run->exit.esr);
>> +    return -ENXIO;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int rec_exit_sys_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> +{
>> +    struct realm_rec *rec = &vcpu->arch.rec;
>> +    unsigned long esr = kvm_vcpu_get_esr(vcpu);
>> +    int rt = kvm_vcpu_sys_get_rt(vcpu);
>> +    bool is_write = !(esr & 1);
>> +    int ret;
>> +
>> +    if (is_write)
>> +        vcpu_set_reg(vcpu, rt, rec->run->exit.gprs[0]);
>> +
>> +    ret = kvm_handle_sys_reg(vcpu);
>> +
>> +    if (ret >= 0 && !is_write)
>> +        rec->run->enter.gprs[0] = vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, rt);
>> +
>
> Unncessary blank line and the conditon isn't completely correct:
> kvm_handle_sys_reg()
> should return 0 if the requested emulation fails, even it always returns
> 1 for now.

It shouldn't matter, but like you say it's not technically the correct
condition so I'll fix this up.

Thanks,
Steve

>     ret = kvm_handle_sys_reg(vcpu);
>     if (ret > 0 && !is_write)
>         rec->run->enter.gprs[0] = vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, rt);
>
>> +    return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>
> [...]
>
> Thanks,
> Gavin
>