Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] KVM: arm64: Release the ownership of the hyp rx buffer to Trustzone

Sebastian Ene
2025-03-28T14:19:02Z

On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 11:39:45AM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote:
> On Thursday 27 Mar 2025 at 09:37:31 (+0000), Sebastian Ene wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 26, 2025 at 04:48:33PM +0000, Quentin Perret wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 26 Mar 2025 at 11:39:01 (+0000), Sebastian Ene wrote:
> > > > Introduce the release FF-A call to notify Trustzone that the hypervisor
> > > > has finished copying the data from the buffer shared with Trustzone to
> > > > the non-secure partition.
> > > >
> > > > Reported-by: Andrei Homescu <ahomescu@google.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Sebastian Ene <sebastianene@google.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c | 9 ++++++---
> > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c
> > > > index 6df6131f1107..ac898ea6274a 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c
> > > > @@ -749,6 +749,7 @@ static void do_ffa_part_get(struct arm_smccc_res *res,
> > > > DECLARE_REG(u32, uuid3, ctxt, 4);
> > > > DECLARE_REG(u32, flags, ctxt, 5);
> > > > u32 count, partition_sz, copy_sz;
> > > > + struct arm_smccc_res _res;
> > > >
> > > > hyp_spin_lock(&host_buffers.lock);
> > > > if (!host_buffers.rx) {
> > > > @@ -765,11 +766,11 @@ static void do_ffa_part_get(struct arm_smccc_res *res,
> > > >
> > > > count = res->a2;
> > > > if (!count)
> > > > - goto out_unlock;
> > > > + goto release_rx;
> > > >
> > > > if (hyp_ffa_version > FFA_VERSION_1_0) {
> > > > /* Get the number of partitions deployed in the system */
> > > > - if (flags & 0x1)
> > > > + if (flags & PARTITION_INFO_GET_RETURN_COUNT_ONLY)
> > > > goto out_unlock;
> > > >
> > > > partition_sz = res->a3;
> > > > @@ -781,10 +782,12 @@ static void do_ffa_part_get(struct arm_smccc_res *res,
> > > > copy_sz = partition_sz * count;
> > > > if (copy_sz > KVM_FFA_MBOX_NR_PAGES * PAGE_SIZE) {
> > > > ffa_to_smccc_res(res, FFA_RET_ABORTED);
> > > > - goto out_unlock;
> > > > + goto release_rx;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > memcpy(host_buffers.rx, hyp_buffers.rx, copy_sz);
> > > > +release_rx:
> > > > + ffa_rx_release(&_res);
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > >
> > > I'm a bit confused about this release call here. In the pKVM FF-A proxy
> > > model, the hypervisor is essentially 'transparent', so do we not expect
> > > EL1 to issue that instead?
> >
> > I think the EL1 should also issue this call irrespective of what the
> > hypervisor is doing. Sudeep can correct me here if I am wrong, but this
> > is my take on this.

>
> Agreed, but with the code as it is implemented in this patch, I think
> that from the host perspective there is a difference in semantic for
> the release call. W/o pKVM the buffer is essentially 'locked' until
> the host issues the release call. With pKVM, the buffer is effectively
> unlocked immediately upon return from the PARTITION_INFO_GET call
> because the hypervisor happened to have issued the release call
> behind our back. And there is no way the host to know the difference.

I understand your point that you are trying to make the hypervisor
transparent, but it is not behaving in this way. One example is that we still
enforce a limit on the size of the ffa_descr_buffer for reclaiming memory.
Letting this aside, I am curios (maybe on another thread) what do we
gain by trying to keep the same behaviour w/o pkvm ?

>
> I understand that we can argue the hypervisor-issued call is for the
> EL2-TZ buffers while the EL1-issued call is for the EL1-EL2 buffers,
> but that's not quite working that way since pKVM just blindly forwards
> the release calls coming from EL1 w/o implementing the expected
> semantic.
>

I think blindly-forwarding the release call is problematic and we should
prevent this from happening. It is wrong from multipple pov: the host is not
the owner of the hyp_rx buffer and you are asking TZ to release the
hypervisor RX buffer by forwarding it. Do you agree on that ? I think
like this patch should include this.

> > I am looking at this as a way of signaling the availability of the rx
> > buffer across partitions. There are some calls that when invoked, they
> > place the buffer in a 'locked state'.
> >
> >
> > > How is EL1 supposed to know that the
> > > hypervisor has already sent the release call?
> >
> > It doesn't need to know, it issues the call as there is no hypervisor
> > in-between, why would it need to know ?
>
> As per the comment above, there is a host-visible difference in semantic
> with or without pKVM which IMO is problematic.

If we apply what I suggested earlier we won't have an issue with the
semantic for this call but it would make the code a mess. I don't think
for this particular call keeping semantics really makes a difference.

>
> For example, if the host issues two PARTITION_INFO_GET calls back to
> back w/o a release call in between, IIUC the expectation from the
> FF-A spec is for the second one to fail. With this patch applied, the
> second call would succeed thanks to the implicit release-call issued by
> pKVM. But it would fail as it is supposed to do w/o pKVM.
>
> I'm not entirely sure if that's gonna cause real-world problem, but it
> does feel unecessary at best. Are we trying to fix an EL1 bug in the
> hypervisor here?
>

This was most likely observed from an issue from the EL1 driver (by not
calling release explicitly), it was reported by Andrei Homescu
<ahomescu@google.com>. it appears that we also have to do something
in the hyp about it and we agreed with Will and Sudeep in the previous version of
the patch:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250313121559.GB7356@willie-the-truck/

> > > And isn't EL1 going to be
> > > confused if the content of the buffer is overridden before is has issued
> > > the release call itself?
> >
> > The hypervisor should prevent changes to the buffer mapped between the
> > host and itself until the release_rx call is issued from the host.
> > If another call that wants to make use of the rx buffer sneaks in, we
> > would have to revoke it with BUSY until rx_release is sent.
>
> Right, exactly, but that's not implemented at the moment. IMO it is much
> simpler to rely on the host to issue the release call and just not do it
> from the PARTITION_INFO_GET path in pKVM. And if we're scared about a
> release call racing with PARTITION_INFO_GET at pKVM level, all we should
> need to do is forward the release call with the host_buffers.lock held I
> think. Wdyt?
>

> Thanks,
> Quentin