[PATCH v2 08/25] KVM: arm64: vgic-v3: Add ICV_EOIR1_EL1 handler
Christoffer Dall
cdall at linaro.org
Mon Jun 5 03:32:23 PDT 2017
On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 11:21:00AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Add a handler for writing the guest's view of the ICC_EOIR1_EL1
> register. This involves dropping the priority of the interrupt,
> and deactivating it if required (EOImode == 0).
>
> Reviewed-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger at redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier at arm.com>
> ---
> include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h | 2 +
> virt/kvm/arm/hyp/vgic-v3-sr.c | 121 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 123 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h
> index 401db585a534..e50ce5d416a3 100644
> --- a/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h
> +++ b/include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h
> @@ -417,6 +417,8 @@
>
> #define ICH_HCR_EN (1 << 0)
> #define ICH_HCR_UIE (1 << 1)
> +#define ICH_HCR_EOIcount_SHIFT 27
> +#define ICH_HCR_EOIcount_MASK (0x1f << ICH_HCR_EOIcount_SHIFT)
>
> #define ICH_VMCR_CBPR_SHIFT 4
> #define ICH_VMCR_CBPR_MASK (1 << ICH_VMCR_CBPR_SHIFT)
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/hyp/vgic-v3-sr.c b/virt/kvm/arm/hyp/vgic-v3-sr.c
> index 16a2eadc7a5c..3f04122a5d4d 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/hyp/vgic-v3-sr.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/hyp/vgic-v3-sr.c
> @@ -426,6 +426,26 @@ static int __hyp_text __vgic_v3_highest_priority_lr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> return lr;
> }
>
> +static int __hyp_text __vgic_v3_find_active_lr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> + int intid, u64 *lr_val)
> +{
> + unsigned int used_lrs = vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.used_lrs;
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < used_lrs; i++) {
> + u64 val = __gic_v3_get_lr(i);
> +
> + if ((val & ICH_LR_VIRTUAL_ID_MASK) == intid &&
> + (val & ICH_LR_ACTIVE_BIT)) {
> + *lr_val = val;
> + return i;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + *lr_val = ICC_IAR1_EL1_SPURIOUS;
> + return -1;
> +}
> +
> static int __hyp_text __vgic_v3_get_highest_active_priority(void)
> {
> u8 nr_pre_bits = vtr_to_nr_pre_bits(read_gicreg(ICH_VTR_EL2));
> @@ -506,6 +526,45 @@ static void __hyp_text __vgic_v3_set_active_priority(u8 pri, u32 vmcr, int grp)
> __vgic_v3_write_ap1rn(val | BIT(ap % 32), apr);
> }
>
> +static int __hyp_text __vgic_v3_clear_highest_active_priority(void)
> +{
> + u8 nr_pre_bits = vtr_to_nr_pre_bits(read_gicreg(ICH_VTR_EL2));
> + u8 nr_apr_regs = vtr_to_nr_apr_regs(read_gicreg(ICH_VTR_EL2));
> + u32 hap = 0;
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < nr_apr_regs; i++) {
> + u32 ap0, ap1;
> + int c0, c1;
> +
> + ap0 = __vgic_v3_read_ap0rn(i);
> + ap1 = __vgic_v3_read_ap1rn(i);
so reading a group 1 interrupt from the IAR and writing that value back
to the EOIR1_EL1 register can somehow clear the priority of a group 0
interrupt?
Or did you just want a generic function that does what it's supposed to
regardless of which register was written to etc.?
> + if (!ap0 && !ap1) {
> + hap += 32;
> + continue;
> + }
> +
> + c0 = ap0 ? __ffs(ap0) : 32;
> + c1 = ap1 ? __ffs(ap1) : 32;
> +
> + /* Always clear the LSB, which is the highest priority */
> + if (c0 < c1) {
> + ap0 &= ~BIT(c0);
> + __vgic_v3_write_ap0rn(ap0, i);
> + hap += c0;
> + } else {
> + ap1 &= ~BIT(c1);
> + __vgic_v3_write_ap1rn(ap1, i);
> + hap += c1;
Can we ever have a situation where c0 == c1? And in that case, should
you prioritize clearing the group 1 apr ?
> + }
> +
> + /* Rescale to 8 bits of priority */
> + return hap << (8 - nr_pre_bits);
> + }
> +
> + return GICv3_IDLE_PRIORITY;
> +}
> +
> static void __hyp_text __vgic_v3_read_iar(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 vmcr, int rt)
> {
> u64 lr_val;
> @@ -542,6 +601,65 @@ static void __hyp_text __vgic_v3_read_iar(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 vmcr, int r
> vcpu_set_reg(vcpu, rt, ICC_IAR1_EL1_SPURIOUS);
> }
>
> +static void __hyp_text __vgic_v3_clear_active_lr(int lr, u64 lr_val)
> +{
> + lr_val &= ~ICH_LR_ACTIVE_BIT;
> + if (lr_val & ICH_LR_HW) {
> + u32 pid;
> +
> + pid = (lr_val & ICH_LR_PHYS_ID_MASK) >> ICH_LR_PHYS_ID_SHIFT;
> + gic_write_dir(pid);
Yikes, scary. I can't think of this breaking anything. But, scary.
> + }
> +
> + __gic_v3_set_lr(lr_val, lr);
> +}
> +
> +static void __hyp_text __vgic_v3_bump_eoicount(void)
> +{
> + u32 hcr;
> +
> + hcr = read_gicreg(ICH_HCR_EL2);
> + hcr += 1 << ICH_HCR_EOIcount_SHIFT;
> + write_gicreg(hcr, ICH_HCR_EL2);
> +}
> +
> +static void __hyp_text __vgic_v3_write_eoir(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 vmcr, int rt)
> +{
> + u32 vid = vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, rt);
> + u64 lr_val;
> + u8 lr_prio, act_prio;
> + int lr, grp;
> +
> + grp = __vgic_v3_get_group(vcpu);
> +
> + /* Drop priority in any case */
> + act_prio = __vgic_v3_clear_highest_active_priority();
> +
> + /* If EOIing an LPI, no deactivate to be performed */
> + if (vid >= VGIC_MIN_LPI)
> + return;
> +
> + /* EOImode == 1, nothing to be done here */
> + if (vmcr & ICH_VMCR_EOIM_MASK)
> + return;
> +
> + lr = __vgic_v3_find_active_lr(vcpu, vid, &lr_val);
> + if (lr == -1) {
> + __vgic_v3_bump_eoicount();
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + lr_prio = (lr_val & ICH_LR_PRIORITY_MASK) >> ICH_LR_PRIORITY_SHIFT;
> +
> + /* If priorities or group do not match, the guest has fscked-up. */
> + if (grp != !!(lr_val & ICH_LR_GROUP) ||
> + __vgic_v3_pri_to_pre(lr_prio, vmcr, grp) != act_prio)
> + return;
Since we've cleared the highest priority above, is there any way for the
guest to recover from this, or do this particular (v)GIC implementation
have the implementation defined behavior of a write with something else
than the last valid read from the IAR of the same group to the EOIR
means that the system is toast?
> +
> + /* Let's now perform the deactivation */
> + __vgic_v3_clear_active_lr(lr, lr_val);
> +}
> +
> static void __hyp_text __vgic_v3_read_igrpen1(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 vmcr, int rt)
> {
> vcpu_set_reg(vcpu, rt, !!(vmcr & ICH_VMCR_ENG1_MASK));
> @@ -609,6 +727,9 @@ int __hyp_text __vgic_v3_perform_cpuif_access(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> case SYS_ICC_IAR1_EL1:
> fn = __vgic_v3_read_iar;
> break;
> + case SYS_ICC_EOIR1_EL1:
> + fn = __vgic_v3_write_eoir;
> + break;
> case SYS_ICC_GRPEN1_EL1:
> if (is_read)
> fn = __vgic_v3_read_igrpen1;
> --
> 2.11.0
>
Thanks,
-Christoffer
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list