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 vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AC69C001B2 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2022 19:02:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229960AbiLHTCG (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Dec 2022 14:02:06 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:33492 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229462AbiLHTCD (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Dec 2022 14:02:03 -0500 Received: from mail-pj1-x1031.google.com (mail-pj1-x1031.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1031]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C7448BD32 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2022 11:02:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pj1-x1031.google.com with SMTP id js9so1448544pjb.2 for ; Thu, 08 Dec 2022 11:02:02 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=+qj/hgsudAsSQeQjwLgM7Er96xTBcPfba5POCbUPtwA=; b=OZuydJPyQ7RHibQ69DK8aLxuHXUNvSGO5obZIQv0KYH19XsbkQC1aG0MlCb9PZfWCX WANqzP3qFui9udWh/088tR7qgAyIVZwDGFo6GozIXGCty6MttKLjyVr6Wzvr+QVAH/AF 6CxPB1pZJI35PWxIXsUk570n/LIoeqNl0mKpWtUxBSngeOqY8WIEIU+b2qKpqC3mmnRL Dve6GGtJOchEaa/us9OjD0lEqWy44kquFqcZs3uIXXlcOMAgUVCnkwQK7KWcE65oXveM 9+OVSAKOLGY8YdAZ+y4D4olEzaD3AMRaIj6tQqRenz46uiGZ8DQ8PpV10U+fjEiVoNcZ 6j8A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=+qj/hgsudAsSQeQjwLgM7Er96xTBcPfba5POCbUPtwA=; b=Pz2qTatQpGkm/roz4J5kFj56BoYLHC16RTCDqabwB+vS265pYL1q0pSg2+jfiiqhNS pcuTEsUGUcxzuWPT0wcJwihqZrPTTqL8Y3LkHJ8C8gOIaBTeBBbN6rQSvpgMoJn2hgB3 oCSIFhqBCXXBIsdMLbP+X9IVGevgngNlLo2UErzQOSZZJl7d5EY1Vc7VxvHsR3zNQeEF eDOl226PdB8sPQDkUenaGI8G1YZbeiIYoJtNMnJ9PVW7xuJdsq5jgtG/LPTccg8ou3qn ul40b1hknkXu9Z/3CHKcCCbQ3SvmN3aXPim911TF9J7sxhES8iL8N7V1rWIHKiBiSgQA gFYQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5plb3XWAhcX6rqIIFB5bBpQ2oOto4+lcx1U+n2HcrsuEqKun0sAn kh7dWuoDsyRJBANSW9C8Y4P6EQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf4AGgSjtYnu5c8NEL23WDXyqgRNekWyEeU6QVFPhXeyxHMI+VeQ/2t+hiPXrAUk+4iEU+mr5g== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:7402:b0:189:58a8:282 with SMTP id g2-20020a170902740200b0018958a80282mr1565905pll.3.1670526121972; Thu, 08 Dec 2022 11:02:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from google.com (7.104.168.34.bc.googleusercontent.com. [34.168.104.7]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u17-20020a170902e81100b0018996404dd5sm5999822plg.109.2022.12.08.11.02.01 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 08 Dec 2022 11:02:01 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2022 19:01:57 +0000 From: Sean Christopherson To: Ricardo Koller Cc: Oliver Upton , Marc Zyngier , James Morse , Alexandru Elisei , Suzuki K Poulose , Paolo Bonzini , Shuah Khan , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] KVM: selftests: Setup ucall after loading program into guest memory Message-ID: References: <20221207214809.489070-1-oliver.upton@linux.dev> <20221207214809.489070-3-oliver.upton@linux.dev> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 08, 2022, Ricardo Koller wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 12:37:23AM +0000, Oliver Upton wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 12:24:20AM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > > Even still, that's just a kludge to make ucalls work. We have other > > > > MMIO devices (GIC distributor, for example) that work by chance since > > > > nothing conflicts with the constant GPAs we've selected in the tests. > > > > > > > > I'd rather we go down the route of having an address allocator for the > > > > for both the VA and PA spaces to provide carveouts at runtime. > > > > > > Aren't those two separate issues? The PA, a.k.a. memslots space, can be solved > > > by allocating a dedicated memslot, i.e. doesn't need a carve. At worst, collisions > > > will yield very explicit asserts, which IMO is better than whatever might go wrong > > > with a carve out. > > > > Perhaps the use of the term 'carveout' wasn't right here. > > > > What I'm suggesting is we cannot rely on KVM memslots alone to act as an > > allocator for the PA space. KVM can provide devices to the guest that > > aren't represented as memslots. If we're trying to fix PA allocations > > anyway, why not make it generic enough to suit the needs of things > > beyond ucalls? > > One extra bit of information: in arm, IO is any access to an address (within > bounds) not backed by a memslot. Not the same as x86 where MMIO are writes to > read-only memslots. No idea what other arches do. I don't think that's correct, doesn't this code turn write abort on a RO memslot into an io_mem_abort()? Specifically, the "(write_fault && !writable)" check will match, and assuming none the the edge cases in the if-statement fire, KVM will send the write down io_mem_abort(). gfn = fault_ipa >> PAGE_SHIFT; memslot = gfn_to_memslot(vcpu->kvm, gfn); hva = gfn_to_hva_memslot_prot(memslot, gfn, &writable); write_fault = kvm_is_write_fault(vcpu); if (kvm_is_error_hva(hva) || (write_fault && !writable)) { /* * The guest has put either its instructions or its page-tables * somewhere it shouldn't have. Userspace won't be able to do * anything about this (there's no syndrome for a start), so * re-inject the abort back into the guest. */ if (is_iabt) { ret = -ENOEXEC; goto out; } if (kvm_vcpu_abt_iss1tw(vcpu)) { kvm_inject_dabt(vcpu, kvm_vcpu_get_hfar(vcpu)); ret = 1; goto out_unlock; } /* * Check for a cache maintenance operation. Since we * ended-up here, we know it is outside of any memory * slot. But we can't find out if that is for a device, * or if the guest is just being stupid. The only thing * we know for sure is that this range cannot be cached. * * So let's assume that the guest is just being * cautious, and skip the instruction. */ if (kvm_is_error_hva(hva) && kvm_vcpu_dabt_is_cm(vcpu)) { kvm_incr_pc(vcpu); ret = 1; goto out_unlock; } /* * The IPA is reported as [MAX:12], so we need to * complement it with the bottom 12 bits from the * faulting VA. This is always 12 bits, irrespective * of the page size. */ fault_ipa |= kvm_vcpu_get_hfar(vcpu) & ((1 << 12) - 1); ret = io_mem_abort(vcpu, fault_ipa); goto out_unlock; }