[PATCH v6 11/25] KVM: arm64: Add remaining ID registers to id_reg_desc_table

[Reiji Watanabe]

On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 4:01 PM Oliver Upton <oupton at google.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 01:23:42PM -0700, Reiji Watanabe wrote:
> > Hi Oliver,
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 12:53 PM Oliver Upton <oupton at google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Reiji,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 08:47:57PM -0800, Reiji Watanabe wrote:
> > > > Add hidden or reserved ID registers, and remaining ID registers,
> > > > which don't require special handling, to id_reg_desc_table.
> > > > Add 'flags' field to id_reg_desc, which is used to indicates hiddden
> > > > or reserved registers. Since now id_reg_desc_init() is called even
> > > > for hidden/reserved registers, change it to not do anything for them.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Reiji Watanabe <reijiw at google.com>
> > >
> > > I think there is a very important detail of the series that probably
> > > should be highlighted. We are only allowing AArch64 feature registers to
> > > be configurable, right? AArch32 feature registers remain visible with
> > > their default values passed through to the guest. If you've already
> > > stated this as a precondition elsewhere then my apologies for the noise.
> > >
> > > I don't know if adding support for this to AArch32 registers is
> > > necessarily the right step forward, either. 32 bit support is working
> > > just fine and IMO its OK to limit new KVM features to AArch64-only so
> > > long as it doesn't break 32 bit support. Marc of course is the authority
> > > on that, though :-)
> > >
> > > If for any reason a guest uses a feature present in the AArch32 feature
> > > register but hidden from the AArch64 register, we could be in a
> > > particularly difficult position. Especially if we enabled traps based on
> > > the AArch64 value and UNDEF the guest.
> > >
> > > One hack we could do is skip trap configuration if AArch32 is visible at
> > > either EL1 or EL0, but that may not be the most elegant solution.
> > > Otherwise, if we are AArch64-only at every EL then the definition of the
> > > AArch32 feature registers is architecturally UNKNOWN, so we can dodge
> > > the problem altogether. What are your thoughts?
> >
> > Thank you so much for your review, Oliver!
> >
> > For aarch32 guests (when KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT is configured),
> > yes, the current series is problematic as you mentioned...
> > I am thinking of disallowing configuring ID registers (keep ID
> > registers immutable) for the aarch32 guests for now at least.
> > (will document that)
>
> That fixes it halfway, but the AArch64 views of the AArch32 feature
> registers have meaning even if AArch32 is defined at EL0. The only time
> they are architecturally UNKNOWN is if AArch32 is not implemented at any
> EL visible to the guest.
>
> So, given that:
>
> > For aarch64 guests that support EL0 aarch32, it would generally
> > be a userspace bug if userspace sets inconsistent values in 32bit
> > and 64bit ID registers. KVM doesn't provide a complete consistency
> > checking for ID registers, but this could be added later as needed.
>
> I completely agree that there is a large set of things that can be swept
> under the rug of userspace bugs. If we are going to do that, we need to
> strongly assert that configurable feature registers is only for fully
> AArch64-only guests. Additionally, strong documentation around these
> expectations is required.

Just to be clear, what I meant "this could be added later" is that
the feature consistency checking between 64bit ID registers and 32bit ID
registers could be added later.  It means configuring ID registers
itself will be allowed for EL1 aarch64 guests including ones that
support EL0 aarch32 (but not for EL1 aarch32 guests).

> Mind you, these opinions are my own and IDK how others or Marc feel
> about it. My read of the situation w.r.t. the AArch32 registers is that
> it will become a mess to implement on top of the AArch64 registers.
> Given the fact that we aren't breaking AArch32 VMs, only augmenting
> behavior for AArch64, it seems OK.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
They look almost the same as what I've been thinking.

Thanks,
Reiji


> But I would genuinely love to be wrong on this topic too. I just don't
> have perspective on AArch32 users so it is hard to really say whether
> this is something they need as well.