[PATCH v3 6/9] KVM: arm-vgic: Add vgic reg access from dev attr
Marc Zyngier
marc.zyngier at arm.com
Mon Dec 9 11:02:13 EST 2013
On 2013-11-17 04:30, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> Add infrastructure to handle distributor and cpu interface register
> accesses through the KVM_{GET/SET}_DEVICE_ATTR interface by adding
> the
> KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_DIST_REGS and KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_CPU_REGS
> groups
> and defining the semantics of the attr field to be the MMIO offset as
> specified in the GICv2 specs.
>
> Set the cpu field (physical CPU index) on the vcpu struct to -1 in
> kvm_arch_vcpu_put so we have a method to check if the vcpu is running
> or
> not without having to grab the VCPU mutexes.
>
> Missing register accesses or other changes in individual register
> access
> functions to support save/restore of the VGIC state is added in
> subsequent patches.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall at linaro.org>
>
> Changelog[v3]:
> - Spelling and formatting nits
> - Fill in the phys_addr in kvm_exit_mmio
> - Put kvm_exit_mmio matching struct on stack
> - Change if-else-if to switch statement in vgic_attr_regs_access
> - Properly synchronize access to the VGIC with all VCPUs and the VM
> structure, ensuring no VCPUs are running while user space is
> accessing VGIC registers.
I have some doubts about this last point, see below.
> Changelog[v2]:
> - Added implementation specific format for the GICC_APRn registers.
> ---
> Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-vgic.txt | 52 ++++++++
> arch/arm/kvm/arm.c | 1 +
> virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c | 169
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 222 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-vgic.txt
> b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-vgic.txt
> index c9febb2..7f4e91b 100644
> --- a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-vgic.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-vgic.txt
> @@ -19,3 +19,55 @@ Groups:
> KVM_VGIC_V2_ADDR_TYPE_CPU (rw, 64-bit)
> Base address in the guest physical address space of the GIC
> virtual cpu
> interface register mappings.
> +
> + KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_DIST_REGS
> + Attributes:
> + The attr field of kvm_device_attr encodes two values:
> + bits: | 63 .... 40 | 39 .. 32 | 31 .... 0 |
> + values: | reserved | cpu id | offset |
> +
> + All distributor regs are (rw, 32-bit)
> +
> + The offset is relative to the "Distributor base address" as
> defined in the
> + GICv2 specs. Getting or setting such a register has the same
> effect as
> + reading or writing the register on the actual hardware from the
> cpu
> + specified with cpu id field. Note that most distributor fields
> are not
> + banked, but return the same value regardless of the cpu id used
> to access
> + the register.
> + Limitations:
> + - Priorities are not implemented, and registers are RAZ/WI
> + Errors:
> + -ENODEV: Getting or setting this register is not yet supported
> + -EBUSY: One or more VCPUs are running
> +
> + KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_CPU_REGS
> + Attributes:
> + The attr field of kvm_device_attr encodes two values:
> + bits: | 63 .... 40 | 39 .. 32 | 31 .... 0 |
> + values: | reserved | cpu id | offset |
> +
> + All CPU interface regs are (rw, 32-bit)
> +
> + The offset specifies the offset from the "CPU interface base
> address" as
> + defined in the GICv2 specs. Getting or setting such a register
> has the
> + same effect as reading or writing the register on the actual
> hardware.
> +
> + The Active Priorities Registers APRn are implementation defined,
> so we set a
> + fixed format for our implementation that fits with the model of
> a "GICv2
> + implementation without the security extensions" which we present
> to the
> + guest. This interface always exposes four register APR[0-3]
> describing the
> + maximum possible 128 preemption levels. The semantics of the
> register
> + indicate if any interrupts in a given preemption level are in
> the active
> + state by setting the corresponding bit.
> +
> + Thus, preemption level X has one or more active interrupts if
> and only if:
> +
> + APRn[X mod 32] == 0b1, where n = X / 32
> +
> + Bits for undefined preemption levels are RAZ/WI.
> +
> + Limitations:
> + - Priorities are not implemented, and registers are RAZ/WI
> + Errors:
> + -ENODEV: Getting or setting this register is not yet supported
> + -EBUSY: One or more VCPUs are running
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c
> index a0bf0d8..35acac8 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c
> @@ -342,6 +342,7 @@ void kvm_arch_vcpu_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> int cpu)
>
> void kvm_arch_vcpu_put(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> {
> + vcpu->cpu = -1;
> kvm_arm_set_running_vcpu(NULL);
> }
This guy deserves to be in a separate patch, with a proper comment and
maybe a #define for the -1 value. Something like "KVM_VCPU_NOT_RUNNING"?
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> index 9b9fa20..ecf6dcf 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> @@ -589,6 +589,20 @@ static bool handle_mmio_sgi_reg(struct kvm_vcpu
> *vcpu,
> return false;
> }
>
> +static bool handle_mmio_sgi_clear(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> + struct kvm_exit_mmio *mmio,
> + phys_addr_t offset)
> +{
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> +static bool handle_mmio_sgi_set(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> + struct kvm_exit_mmio *mmio,
> + phys_addr_t offset)
> +{
> + return false;
> +}
> +
> /*
> * I would have liked to use the kvm_bus_io_*() API instead, but it
> * cannot cope with banked registers (only the VM pointer is passed
> @@ -663,6 +677,16 @@ static const struct mmio_range
> vgic_dist_ranges[] = {
> .len = 4,
> .handle_mmio = handle_mmio_sgi_reg,
> },
> + {
> + .base = GIC_DIST_SGI_CLEAR,
> + .len = VGIC_NR_SGIS,
> + .handle_mmio = handle_mmio_sgi_clear,
> + },
> + {
> + .base = GIC_DIST_SGI_SET,
> + .len = VGIC_NR_SGIS,
> + .handle_mmio = handle_mmio_sgi_set,
> + },
> {}
> };
>
> @@ -1552,6 +1576,107 @@ int kvm_vgic_addr(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned
> long type, u64 *addr, bool write)
> return r;
> }
>
> +static bool handle_cpu_mmio_misc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> + struct kvm_exit_mmio *mmio, phys_addr_t offset)
> +{
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct mmio_range vgic_cpu_ranges[] = {
> + {
> + .base = GIC_CPU_CTRL,
> + .len = 12,
> + .handle_mmio = handle_cpu_mmio_misc,
> + },
> + {
> + .base = GIC_CPU_ALIAS_BINPOINT,
> + .len = 4,
> + .handle_mmio = handle_cpu_mmio_misc,
> + },
> + {
> + .base = GIC_CPU_ACTIVEPRIO,
> + .len = 16,
> + .handle_mmio = handle_cpu_mmio_misc,
> + },
> + {
> + .base = GIC_CPU_IDENT,
> + .len = 4,
> + .handle_mmio = handle_cpu_mmio_misc,
> + },
> +};
> +
> +static int vgic_attr_regs_access(struct kvm_device *dev,
> + struct kvm_device_attr *attr,
> + u32 *reg, bool is_write)
> +{
> + const struct mmio_range *r = NULL, *ranges;
> + phys_addr_t offset;
> + int ret, cpuid, c;
> + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, *tmp_vcpu;
> + struct vgic_dist *vgic;
> + struct kvm_exit_mmio mmio;
> +
> + offset = attr->attr & KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_OFFSET_MASK;
> + cpuid = (attr->attr & KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_CPUID_MASK) >>
> + KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_CPUID_SHIFT;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&dev->kvm->lock);
> +
> + if (cpuid >= atomic_read(&dev->kvm->online_vcpus)) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> + vcpu = kvm_get_vcpu(dev->kvm, cpuid);
> + vgic = &dev->kvm->arch.vgic;
> +
> + mmio.len = 4;
> + mmio.is_write = is_write;
> + if (is_write)
> + mmio_data_write(&mmio, ~0, *reg);
> + switch (attr->group) {
> + case KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_DIST_REGS:
> + mmio.phys_addr = vgic->vgic_dist_base + offset;
> + ranges = vgic_dist_ranges;
> + break;
> + case KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_CPU_REGS:
> + mmio.phys_addr = vgic->vgic_cpu_base + offset;
> + ranges = vgic_cpu_ranges;
> + break;
> + default:
> + BUG();
> + }
> + r = find_matching_range(ranges, &mmio, offset);
> +
> + if (unlikely(!r || !r->handle_mmio)) {
> + ret = -ENXIO;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
> +
> + spin_lock(&vgic->lock);
> +
> + kvm_for_each_vcpu(c, tmp_vcpu, dev->kvm) {
> + if (unlikely(tmp_vcpu->cpu != -1)) {
What guarantees that the vcpu is not going to be restarted behind your
back? I can't see anything that locks vcpu->mutex.
> + spin_unlock(&vgic->lock);
> + ret = -EBUSY;
> + goto out;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + offset -= r->base;
> + r->handle_mmio(vcpu, &mmio, offset);
> + spin_unlock(&vgic->lock);
> +
> + if (!is_write)
> + *reg = mmio_data_read(&mmio, ~0);
> +
> + ret = 0;
> +out:
How about moving the "spin_unlock(&vgic->lock);" here, and simplify the
exit case of the loop above?
> + mutex_unlock(&dev->kvm->lock);
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> static int vgic_set_attr(struct kvm_device *dev, struct
> kvm_device_attr *attr)
> {
> int r;
> @@ -1568,6 +1693,18 @@ static int vgic_set_attr(struct kvm_device
> *dev, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
> r = kvm_vgic_addr(dev->kvm, type, &addr, true);
> return (r == -ENODEV) ? -ENXIO : r;
> }
> +
> + case KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_DIST_REGS:
> + case KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_CPU_REGS: {
> + u32 __user *uaddr = (u32 __user *)(long)attr->addr;
> + u32 reg;
> +
> + if (get_user(reg, uaddr))
> + return -EFAULT;
> +
> + return vgic_attr_regs_access(dev, attr, ®, true);
> + }
> +
> }
>
> return -ENXIO;
> @@ -1589,12 +1726,38 @@ static int vgic_get_attr(struct kvm_device
> *dev, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
>
> if (copy_to_user(uaddr, &addr, sizeof(addr)))
> return -EFAULT;
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + case KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_DIST_REGS:
> + case KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_CPU_REGS: {
> + u32 __user *uaddr = (u32 __user *)(long)attr->addr;
> + u32 reg = 0;
> +
> + r = vgic_attr_regs_access(dev, attr, ®, false);
> + if (r)
> + return r;
> + r = put_user(reg, uaddr);
> + break;
> }
> +
> }
>
> return r;
> }
>
> +static int vgic_has_attr_regs(const struct mmio_range *ranges,
> + phys_addr_t offset)
> +{
> + struct kvm_exit_mmio dev_attr_mmio;
> +
> + dev_attr_mmio.len = 4;
> + if (find_matching_range(ranges, &dev_attr_mmio, offset))
> + return 0;
> + else
> + return -ENXIO;
> +}
> +
> static int vgic_has_attr(struct kvm_device *dev, struct
> kvm_device_attr *attr)
> {
> phys_addr_t offset;
> @@ -1607,6 +1770,12 @@ static int vgic_has_attr(struct kvm_device
> *dev, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
> return 0;
> }
> break;
> + case KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_DIST_REGS:
> + offset = attr->attr & KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_OFFSET_MASK;
> + return vgic_has_attr_regs(vgic_dist_ranges, offset);
> + case KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_CPU_REGS:
> + offset = attr->attr & KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_OFFSET_MASK;
> + return vgic_has_attr_regs(vgic_cpu_ranges, offset);
> }
> return -ENXIO;
> }
--
Fast, cheap, reliable. Pick two.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list