[RFC PATCH v4 02/26] KVM: arm64: Save ID registers' sanitized value per guest
Ricardo Koller
ricarkol at google.com
Fri Jan 28 11:27:21 PST 2022
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 10:24 PM Reiji Watanabe <reijiw at google.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Ricardo,
>
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 9:22 PM Ricardo Koller <ricarkol at google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 05, 2022 at 08:26:44PM -0800, Reiji Watanabe wrote:
> > > Introduce id_regs[] in kvm_arch as a storage of guest's ID registers,
> > > and save ID registers' sanitized value in the array at KVM_CREATE_VM.
> > > Use the saved ones when ID registers are read by the guest or
> > > userspace (via KVM_GET_ONE_REG).
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Reiji Watanabe <reijiw at google.com>
> > > ---
> > > arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 16 ++++++++
> > > arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 1 +
> > > arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> > > 3 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > index 2a5f7f38006f..c789a0137f58 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > @@ -102,6 +102,17 @@ struct kvm_s2_mmu {
> > > struct kvm_arch_memory_slot {
> > > };
> > >
> > > +/*
> > > + * (Op0, Op1, CRn, CRm, Op2) of ID registers is (3, 0, 0, crm, op2),
> > > + * where 0<=crm<8, 0<=op2<8.
> >
> > Is this observation based on this table?
> >
> > Table D12-2 System instruction encodings for non-Debug System register accesses
> > in that case, it seems that the ID registers list might grow after
> > crm=7, and as CRm has 4 bits, why not 16*8=128?
>
> This is basically for registers that are already reserved as RAZ in the
> table (sys_reg_descs[] has entries for the reserved ones as well).
> Registers with crm > 7 are not reserved yet, and that will be expanded
> later as needed later.
>
>
> >
> > > + */
> > > +#define KVM_ARM_ID_REG_MAX_NUM 64
> > > +#define IDREG_IDX(id) ((sys_reg_CRm(id) << 3) | sys_reg_Op2(id))
> > > +#define is_id_reg(id) \
> > > + (sys_reg_Op0(id) == 3 && sys_reg_Op1(id) == 0 && \
> > > + sys_reg_CRn(id) == 0 && sys_reg_CRm(id) >= 0 && \
> > > + sys_reg_CRm(id) < 8)
> > > +
> > > struct kvm_arch {
> > > struct kvm_s2_mmu mmu;
> > >
> > > @@ -137,6 +148,9 @@ struct kvm_arch {
> > >
> > > /* Memory Tagging Extension enabled for the guest */
> > > bool mte_enabled;
> > > +
> > > + /* ID registers for the guest. */
> > > + u64 id_regs[KVM_ARM_ID_REG_MAX_NUM];
> > > };
> > >
> > > struct kvm_vcpu_fault_info {
> > > @@ -734,6 +748,8 @@ int kvm_arm_vcpu_arch_has_attr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > long kvm_vm_ioctl_mte_copy_tags(struct kvm *kvm,
> > > struct kvm_arm_copy_mte_tags *copy_tags);
> > >
> > > +void set_default_id_regs(struct kvm *kvm);
> > > +
> > > /* Guest/host FPSIMD coordination helpers */
> > > int kvm_arch_vcpu_run_map_fp(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> > > void kvm_arch_vcpu_load_fp(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > > index e4727dc771bf..5f497a0af254 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > > @@ -156,6 +156,7 @@ int kvm_arch_init_vm(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long type)
> > > kvm->arch.max_vcpus = kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus();
> > >
> > > set_default_spectre(kvm);
> > > + set_default_id_regs(kvm);
> > >
> > > return ret;
> > > out_free_stage2_pgd:
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> > > index e3ec1a44f94d..80dc62f98ef0 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> > > @@ -33,6 +33,8 @@
> > >
> > > #include "trace.h"
> > >
> > > +static u64 __read_id_reg(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 id);
> > > +
> > > /*
> > > * All of this file is extremely similar to the ARM coproc.c, but the
> > > * types are different. My gut feeling is that it should be pretty
> > > @@ -273,7 +275,7 @@ static bool trap_loregion(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > struct sys_reg_params *p,
> > > const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
> > > {
> > > - u64 val = read_sanitised_ftr_reg(SYS_ID_AA64MMFR1_EL1);
> > > + u64 val = __read_id_reg(vcpu, SYS_ID_AA64MMFR1_EL1);
> > > u32 sr = reg_to_encoding(r);
> > >
> > > if (!(val & (0xfUL << ID_AA64MMFR1_LOR_SHIFT))) {
> > > @@ -1059,17 +1061,9 @@ static bool access_arch_timer(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > return true;
> > > }
> > >
> > > -/* Read a sanitised cpufeature ID register by sys_reg_desc */
> > > -static u64 read_id_reg(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > - struct sys_reg_desc const *r, bool raz)
> > > +static u64 __read_id_reg(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 id)
> > > {
> > > - u32 id = reg_to_encoding(r);
> > > - u64 val;
> > > -
> > > - if (raz)
> > > - return 0;
> > > -
> > > - val = read_sanitised_ftr_reg(id);
> > > + u64 val = vcpu->kvm->arch.id_regs[IDREG_IDX(id)];
> > >
> > > switch (id) {
> > > case SYS_ID_AA64PFR0_EL1:
> > > @@ -1119,6 +1113,14 @@ static u64 read_id_reg(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > return val;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static u64 read_id_reg(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > + struct sys_reg_desc const *r, bool raz)
> > > +{
> > > + u32 id = reg_to_encoding(r);
> > > +
> > > + return raz ? 0 : __read_id_reg(vcpu, id);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > static unsigned int id_visibility(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
> > > {
> > > @@ -1223,9 +1225,8 @@ static int set_id_aa64pfr0_el1(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > /*
> > > * cpufeature ID register user accessors
> > > *
> > > - * For now, these registers are immutable for userspace, so no values
> > > - * are stored, and for set_id_reg() we don't allow the effective value
> > > - * to be changed.
> > > + * For now, these registers are immutable for userspace, so for set_id_reg()
> > > + * we don't allow the effective value to be changed.
> > > */
> > > static int __get_id_reg(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > const struct sys_reg_desc *rd, void __user *uaddr,
> > > @@ -1237,7 +1238,7 @@ static int __get_id_reg(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > return reg_to_user(uaddr, &val, id);
> > > }
> > >
> > > -static int __set_id_reg(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > +static int __set_id_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > const struct sys_reg_desc *rd, void __user *uaddr,
> > > bool raz)
> > > {
> > > @@ -1837,8 +1838,8 @@ static bool trap_dbgdidr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > if (p->is_write) {
> > > return ignore_write(vcpu, p);
> > > } else {
> > > - u64 dfr = read_sanitised_ftr_reg(SYS_ID_AA64DFR0_EL1);
> > > - u64 pfr = read_sanitised_ftr_reg(SYS_ID_AA64PFR0_EL1);
> > > + u64 dfr = __read_id_reg(vcpu, SYS_ID_AA64DFR0_EL1);
> > > + u64 pfr = __read_id_reg(vcpu, SYS_ID_AA64PFR0_EL1);
> > > u32 el3 = !!cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field(pfr, ID_AA64PFR0_EL3_SHIFT);
> > >
> > > p->regval = ((((dfr >> ID_AA64DFR0_WRPS_SHIFT) & 0xf) << 28) |
> > > @@ -2850,3 +2851,30 @@ void kvm_sys_reg_table_init(void)
> > > /* Clear all higher bits. */
> > > cache_levels &= (1 << (i*3))-1;
> > > }
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * Set the guest's ID registers that are defined in sys_reg_descs[]
> > > + * with ID_SANITISED() to the host's sanitized value.
> > > + */
> > > +void set_default_id_regs(struct kvm *kvm)
> > > +{
> > > + int i;
> > > + u32 id;
> > > + const struct sys_reg_desc *rd;
> > > + u64 val;
> > > +
> > > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(sys_reg_descs); i++) {
> > > + rd = &sys_reg_descs[i];
> > > + if (rd->access != access_id_reg)
> > > + /* Not ID register, or hidden/reserved ID register */
> > > + continue;
> > > +
> > > + id = reg_to_encoding(rd);
> > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!is_id_reg(id)))
> > > + /* Shouldn't happen */
> > > + continue;
> > > +
> > > + val = read_sanitised_ftr_reg(id);
> >
> > I'm a bit confused. Shouldn't the default+sanitized values already use
> > arm64_ftr_bits_kvm (instead of arm64_ftr_regs)?
>
> I'm not sure if I understand your question.
> arm64_ftr_bits_kvm is used for feature support checkings when
> userspace tries to modify a value of ID registers.
> With this patch, KVM just saves the sanitized values in the kvm's
> buffer, but userspace is still not allowed to modify values of ID
> registers yet.
> I hope it answers your question.
Based on the previous commit I was assuming that some registers, like
id_aa64dfr0,
would default to the overwritten values as the sanitized values. More
specifically: if
userspace doesn't modify any ID reg, shouldn't the defaults have the
KVM overwritten
values (arm64_ftr_bits_kvm)?
>
> Thanks,
> Reiji
>
> >
> > > + kvm->arch.id_regs[IDREG_IDX(id)] = val;
> > > + }
> > > +}
> > > --
> > > 2.34.1.448.ga2b2bfdf31-goog
> > >
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list