[RFC PATCH 1/5] ARM/ARM64: KVM: Update user space API header for PSCI emulation

[Marc Zyngier]

On 17/10/13 07:45, Anup Patel wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:41 AM, Christoffer Dall
> <christoffer.dall at linaro.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:32:30PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
>>> Update user space API interface headers for providing information to
>>> user space needed to emulate PSCI function calls in user space (i.e.
>>> QEMU or KVMTOOL).
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Anup Patel <anup.patel at linaro.org>
>>> Signed-off-by: Pranavkumar Sawargaonkar <pranavkumar at linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>>  include/uapi/linux/kvm.h |    7 +++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
>>> index e32e776..dae2664 100644
>>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
>>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
>>> @@ -171,6 +171,7 @@ struct kvm_pit_config {
>>>  #define KVM_EXIT_WATCHDOG         21
>>>  #define KVM_EXIT_S390_TSCH        22
>>>  #define KVM_EXIT_EPR              23
>>> +#define KVM_EXIT_PSCI             24
>>>
>>>  /* For KVM_EXIT_INTERNAL_ERROR */
>>>  /* Emulate instruction failed. */
>>> @@ -301,6 +302,12 @@ struct kvm_run {
>>>               struct {
>>>                       __u32 epr;
>>>               } epr;
>>> +             /* KVM_EXIT_PSCI */
>>> +             struct {
>>> +                     __u32 fn;
>>> +                     __u64 args[7];
>>> +                     __u64 ret[4];
>>> +             } psci;
>>>               /* Fix the size of the union. */
>>>               char padding[256];
>>>       };
>>> --
>>> 1.7.9.5
>>>
>> I am also wondering if this is not solving a very specific need without
>> thinking a little more carefully about this problem.
> 
> No, its not solving a specific problem.
> 
> In fact, its more general because we pass complete info required to
> emulate a PSCI call in user space.
> (Please refer PSCI calling convention)
> 
>>
>> We have previously discussed the need for some secure side emulation
>> in QEMU, and I think perhaps we need something more generic which allows
>> user space to handle SMC calls and/or allows user space to "inject" some
>> secure world runtime that the kernel can run in a partially or fully
>> isolated container to handle SMC calls.
>>
>> Peter raised this issue previously and pointed to a proposal he had as
>> well.
> 
> If required we can have an additional field in kvm_run->psci which tells
> whether the PSCI call is an SMC call or HVC call.
> 
>>
>> Is there a technical reason why we need something specifically directed
>> to PSCI?
> 
> Its quite natural to add this to PSCI emulation in KVM ARM/ARM64 instead
> of adding a separate VirtIO device for System reboot and System poweroff.
> 
> Also in the process of implementing SYSTEM_OFF and SYSTEM_RESET
> emulation in user space we would also have an infrastructure for adding
> emulation of new PSCI calls in user space.

And I strongly oppose to that. It creates consistency issues (what if
userspace implements one version of PSCI, and the kernel another?), and
also some really horrible situations: Imagine you implement the SUSPEND
operation in userspace, and want to wake the vcpu up with an interrupt.
You'd end-up having to keep track of the state in the kernel, having to
forward the interrupt event to userspace...

So really, no.

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...