[PATCH v3 0/3] KVM: arm64: single step emulation instructions

[Christoffer Dall]

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:43:12PM +0000, Alex Bennée wrote:
> 
> Christoffer Dall <cdall at linaro.org> writes:
> 
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 03:39:18PM +0000, Alex Bennée wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> This is rev 3 of the series, practically the same than rev 2 but fixed
> >> a return 1->0 in the kvm_run loop that Julien caught. I've added his
> >> r-b tags to the other patches.
> >>
> >> As usual revision details bellow the --- in each patch.
> >
> > Thanks for taking care of this.
> >
> > I have applied the series and slightly tweaked the commit messages and
> > commentary.
> >
> > Did we simply decide to not worry about exiting to userspace if we do
> > fast-path emulation, such as for the errata workaround and GIC
> > mashaling in switch.c ?
> 
> Compile tested only:
> 
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> kvm: arm64: handle single-step of hyp emulated mmio
> 
> There is a fast-path of MMIO emulation inside hyp mode. The handling
> of single-step is broadly the same as kvm_arm_handle_step_debug()
> except we just setup ESR/HSR so handle_exit() does the correct thing
> as we exit.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee at linaro.org>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c | 26 +++++++++++++++++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c
> index 945e79c641c4..841dc79d11fd 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c
> @@ -263,7 +263,11 @@ static bool __hyp_text __populate_fault_info(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  	return true;
>  }
> 
> -static void __hyp_text __skip_instr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +/* Skip an instruction which has been emulated. Returns true if
> + * execution can continue or false if we need to exit hyp mode because
> + * single-step was in effect.
> + */
> +static bool __hyp_text __skip_instr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  {
>  	*vcpu_pc(vcpu) = read_sysreg_el2(elr);
> 
> @@ -276,6 +280,14 @@ static void __hyp_text __skip_instr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  	}
> 
>  	write_sysreg_el2(*vcpu_pc(vcpu), elr);
> +
> +	if (vcpu->guest_debug & KVM_GUESTDBG_SINGLESTEP) {
> +		vcpu->arch.fault.esr_el2 =
> +			(ESR_ELx_EC_SOFTSTP_LOW << ESR_ELx_EC_SHIFT) | 0x22;
> +		return false;
> +	} else {
> +		return true;
> +	}
>  }
> 
>  int __hyp_text __kvm_vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> @@ -336,8 +348,10 @@ int __hyp_text __kvm_vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  			int ret = __vgic_v2_perform_cpuif_access(vcpu);
> 
>  			if (ret == 1) {
> -				__skip_instr(vcpu);
> -				goto again;
> +				if (__skip_instr(vcpu))
> +					goto again;
> +				else
> +					exit_code = ARM_EXCEPTION_TRAP;
>  			}
> 
>  			if (ret == -1) {
> @@ -357,8 +371,10 @@ int __hyp_text __kvm_vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  		int ret = __vgic_v3_perform_cpuif_access(vcpu);
> 
>  		if (ret == 1) {
> -			__skip_instr(vcpu);
> -			goto again;
> +			if (__skip_instr(vcpu))
> +				goto again;
> +			else
> +				exit_code = ARM_EXCEPTION_TRAP;
>  		}
> 
>  		/* 0 falls through to be handled out of EL2 */
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Assuming you fix Marc's comment this looks reasonable to me.  Please
send as a separate patch.

Thanks,
-Christoffer