[kvmarm] [PATCH v4 05/13] ARM: KVM: VGIC accept vcpu and dist base addresses from user space
Marc Zyngier
marc.zyngier at arm.com
Wed Nov 28 08:22:54 EST 2012
On 28/11/12 13:11, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 03:44:51PM +0000, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>> User space defines the model to emulate to a guest and should therefore
>> decide which addresses are used for both the virtual CPU interface
>> directly mapped in the guest physical address space and for the emulated
>> distributor interface, which is mapped in software by the in-kernel VGIC
>> support.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <c.dall at virtualopensystems.com>
>> ---
>> arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_mmu.h | 2 +
>> arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_vgic.h | 9 ++++++
>> arch/arm/kvm/arm.c | 16 ++++++++++
>> arch/arm/kvm/vgic.c | 61 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 4 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_mmu.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_mmu.h
>> index 9bd0508..0800531 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_mmu.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_mmu.h
>> @@ -26,6 +26,8 @@
>> * To save a bit of memory and to avoid alignment issues we assume 39-bit IPA
>> * for now, but remember that the level-1 table must be aligned to its size.
>> */
>> +#define KVM_PHYS_SHIFT (38)
>
> Seems a bit small...
It's now been fixed to be 40 bits.
> +#define KVM_PHYS_MASK ((1ULL << KVM_PHYS_SHIFT) - 1)
>> #define PTRS_PER_PGD2 512
>> #define PGD2_ORDER get_order(PTRS_PER_PGD2 * sizeof(pgd_t))
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_vgic.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_vgic.h
>> index b444ecf..9ca8d21 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_vgic.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_vgic.h
>> @@ -20,6 +20,9 @@
>> #define __ASM_ARM_KVM_VGIC_H
>>
>> struct vgic_dist {
>> + /* Distributor and vcpu interface mapping in the guest */
>> + phys_addr_t vgic_dist_base;
>> + phys_addr_t vgic_cpu_base;
>> };
>>
>> struct vgic_cpu {
>> @@ -31,6 +34,7 @@ struct kvm_run;
>> struct kvm_exit_mmio;
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_KVM_ARM_VGIC
>> +int kvm_vgic_set_addr(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long type, u64 addr);
>> bool vgic_handle_mmio(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run,
>> struct kvm_exit_mmio *mmio);
>>
>> @@ -40,6 +44,11 @@ static inline int kvm_vgic_hyp_init(void)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static inline int kvm_vgic_set_addr(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long type, u64 addr)
>> +{
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> static inline int kvm_vgic_init(struct kvm *kvm)
>> {
>> return 0;
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c
>> index 426828a..3ac1aab 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c
>> @@ -61,6 +61,8 @@ static atomic64_t kvm_vmid_gen = ATOMIC64_INIT(1);
>> static u8 kvm_next_vmid;
>> static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(kvm_vmid_lock);
>>
>> +static bool vgic_present;
>> +
>> static void kvm_arm_set_running_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> {
>> BUG_ON(preemptible());
>> @@ -825,7 +827,19 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_get_dirty_log(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_dirty_log *log)
>> static int kvm_vm_ioctl_set_device_address(struct kvm *kvm,
>> struct kvm_device_address *dev_addr)
>> {
>> - return -ENODEV;
>> + unsigned long dev_id, type;
>> +
>> + dev_id = (dev_addr->id & KVM_DEVICE_ID_MASK) >> KVM_DEVICE_ID_SHIFT;
>> + type = (dev_addr->id & KVM_DEVICE_TYPE_MASK) >> KVM_DEVICE_TYPE_SHIFT;
>> +
>> + switch (dev_id) {
>> + case KVM_ARM_DEVICE_VGIC_V2:
>> + if (!vgic_present)
>> + return -ENXIO;
>> + return kvm_vgic_set_addr(kvm, type, dev_addr->addr);
>> + default:
>> + return -ENODEV;
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> long kvm_arch_vm_ioctl(struct file *filp,
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/vgic.c b/arch/arm/kvm/vgic.c
>> index 26ada3b..f85b275 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/kvm/vgic.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/kvm/vgic.c
>> @@ -22,6 +22,13 @@
>> #include <linux/io.h>
>> #include <asm/kvm_emulate.h>
>>
>> +#define VGIC_ADDR_UNDEF (-1)
>> +#define IS_VGIC_ADDR_UNDEF(_x) ((_x) == (typeof(_x))VGIC_ADDR_UNDEF)
>> +
>> +#define VGIC_DIST_SIZE 0x1000
>> +#define VGIC_CPU_SIZE 0x2000
>
> These defines might be useful to userspace so that they don't request the
> distributor and the cpu interface to be place too close together (been there,
> done that :).
Fair enough.
>> +
>> +
>> #define ACCESS_READ_VALUE (1 << 0)
>> #define ACCESS_READ_RAZ (0 << 0)
>> #define ACCESS_READ_MASK(x) ((x) & (1 << 0))
>> @@ -136,3 +143,57 @@ bool vgic_handle_mmio(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run, struct kvm_exi
>> {
>> return KVM_EXIT_MMIO;
>> }
>> +
>> +static bool vgic_ioaddr_overlap(struct kvm *kvm)
>> +{
>> + phys_addr_t dist = kvm->arch.vgic.vgic_dist_base;
>> + phys_addr_t cpu = kvm->arch.vgic.vgic_cpu_base;
>> +
>> + if (IS_VGIC_ADDR_UNDEF(dist) || IS_VGIC_ADDR_UNDEF(cpu))
>> + return false;
>> + if ((dist <= cpu && dist + VGIC_DIST_SIZE > cpu) ||
>> + (cpu <= dist && cpu + VGIC_CPU_SIZE > dist))
>> + return true;
>> + return false;
>
> Just return the predicate that you're testing.
>
>> +}
>> +
>> +int kvm_vgic_set_addr(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long type, u64 addr)
>> +{
>> + int r = 0;
>> + struct vgic_dist *vgic = &kvm->arch.vgic;
>> +
>> + if (addr & ~KVM_PHYS_MASK)
>> + return -E2BIG;
>> +
>> + if (addr & ~PAGE_MASK)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
>> + switch (type) {
>> + case KVM_VGIC_V2_ADDR_TYPE_DIST:
>> + if (!IS_VGIC_ADDR_UNDEF(vgic->vgic_dist_base))
>> + return -EEXIST;
>> + if (addr + VGIC_DIST_SIZE < addr)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>
> I think somebody else pointed out the missing mutex_unlocks on the failure
> paths.
Yes, it's been fixed in the tree already.
>> + kvm->arch.vgic.vgic_dist_base = addr;
>> + break;
>> + case KVM_VGIC_V2_ADDR_TYPE_CPU:
>> + if (!IS_VGIC_ADDR_UNDEF(vgic->vgic_cpu_base))
>> + return -EEXIST;
>> + if (addr + VGIC_CPU_SIZE < addr)
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> + kvm->arch.vgic.vgic_cpu_base = addr;
>> + break;
>> + default:
>> + r = -ENODEV;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (vgic_ioaddr_overlap(kvm)) {
>> + kvm->arch.vgic.vgic_dist_base = VGIC_ADDR_UNDEF;
>> + kvm->arch.vgic.vgic_cpu_base = VGIC_ADDR_UNDEF;
>> + return -EINVAL;
>
> Perhaps we could put all the address checking in one place, so that the wrapping
> round zero checks and the overlap checks can be in the same function?
>
>> + }
>> +
>> + mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
>> + return r;
>> +}
>
> Will
> _______________________________________________
> kvmarm mailing list
> kvmarm at lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
>
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list