[PATCH V16 2/8] KVM: arm64: Prevent guest accesses into BRBE system registers/instructions

Anshuman Khandual anshuman.khandual at arm.com
Tue Feb 27 03:13:25 PST 2024 


On 2/27/24 15:34, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 12:58:48PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/21/24 19:31, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 03:11:13PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>> Currently BRBE feature is not supported in a guest environment. This hides
>>>> BRBE feature availability via masking ID_AA64DFR0_EL1.BRBE field.
>>>
>>> Does that means that a guest can currently see BRBE advertised in the
>>> ID_AA64DFR0_EL1.BRB field, or is that hidden by the regular cpufeature code
>>> today?
>>
>> IIRC it is hidden, but will have to double check. When experimenting for BRBE
>> guest support enablement earlier, following changes were need for the feature
>> to be visible in ID_AA64DFR0_EL1.
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> index 646591c67e7a..f258568535a8 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> @@ -445,6 +445,7 @@ static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_id_mmfr0[] = {
>>  };
>>  
>>  static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_id_aa64dfr0[] = {
>> +       S_ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_VISIBLE, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_BRBE_SHIFT, 4, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_BRBE_IMP),
>>         S_ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_DoubleLock_SHIFT, 4, 0),
>>         ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_PMSVer_SHIFT, 4, 0),
>>         ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_CTX_CMPs_SHIFT, 4, 0),
>>
>> Should we add the following entry - explicitly hiding BRBE from the guest
>> as a prerequisite patch ?
>>
>> S_ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_BRBE_SHIFT, 4, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_BRBE_NI)
> 
> Is it visbile currently, or is it hidden currently?
> 
> * If it is visible before this patch, that's a latent bug that we need to go
>   fix first, and that'll require more coordination.
> 
> * If it is not visible before this patch, there's no problem in the code, but
>   the commit message needs to explicitly mention that's the case as the commit
>   message currently implies it is visible by only mentioning hiding it.
> 
> ... so can you please double check as you suggested above? We should be able to
> explain why it is or is not visible today.

It is currently hidden i.e following code returns 1 in the host
but returns 0 inside the guest.

aa64dfr0 = read_sysreg_s(SYS_ID_AA64DFR0_EL1);
brbe = cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field(aa64dfr0, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_BRBE_SHIFT);

Hence - will update the commit message here as suggested.

> 
> Mark.
> 
>>>> This also blocks guest accesses into BRBE system registers and instructions
>>>> as if the underlying hardware never implemented FEAT_BRBE feature.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz at kernel.org>
>>>> Cc: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton at linux.dev>
>>>> Cc: James Morse <james.morse at arm.com>
>>>> Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose at arm.com>
>>>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas at arm.com>
>>>> Cc: Will Deacon <will at kernel.org>
>>>> Cc: kvmarm at lists.linux.dev
>>>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
>>>> Cc: linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org
>>>> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual at arm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> Changes in V16:
>>>>
>>>> - Added BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1 macro for corresponding BRB_[INF|SRC|TGT] expansion
>>>>
>>>>  arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>  1 file changed, 56 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
>>>> index 30253bd19917..6a06dc2f0c06 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
>>>> @@ -1304,6 +1304,11 @@ static int set_pmcr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct sys_reg_desc *r,
>>>>  	return 0;
>>>>  }
>>>>  
>>>> +#define BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(n)					\
>>>> +	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBINF##n##_EL1), undef_access },	\
>>>> +	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBSRC##n##_EL1), undef_access },	\
>>>> +	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBTGT##n##_EL1), undef_access }		\
>>>
>>> With the changes suggested on the previous patch, this would need to change to be:
>>>
>>> 	#define BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(n)					\
>>> 		{ SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBINF_EL1(n)), undef_access },	\
>>> 		{ SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBSRC_EL1(n)), undef_access },	\
>>> 		{ SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBTGT_EL1(n)), undef_access }	\
>>
>> Sure, already folded back in these above changes.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ... which would also be easier for backporting (if necessary), since those
>>> definitions have existed for a while.
>>>
>>> Otherwise (modulo Suzuki's comment about rebasing), this looks good to me.
>>
>> Okay.
>>
>>>
>>> Mark.
>>>
>>>>  /* Silly macro to expand the DBG{BCR,BVR,WVR,WCR}n_EL1 registers in one go */
>>>>  #define DBG_BCR_BVR_WCR_WVR_EL1(n)					\
>>>>  	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_DBGBVRn_EL1(n)),					\
>>>> @@ -1707,6 +1712,9 @@ static u64 read_sanitised_id_aa64dfr0_el1(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>>>  	/* Hide SPE from guests */
>>>>  	val &= ~ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_PMSVer_MASK;
>>>>  
>>>> +	/* Hide BRBE from guests */
>>>> +	val &= ~ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_BRBE_MASK;
>>>> +
>>>>  	return val;
>>>>  }
>>>>  
>>>> @@ -2195,6 +2203,8 @@ static const struct sys_reg_desc sys_reg_descs[] = {
>>>>  	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_DC_CISW), access_dcsw },
>>>>  	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_DC_CIGSW), access_dcgsw },
>>>>  	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_DC_CIGDSW), access_dcgsw },
>>>> +	{ SYS_DESC(OP_BRB_IALL), undef_access },
>>>> +	{ SYS_DESC(OP_BRB_INJ), undef_access },
>>>>  
>>>>  	DBG_BCR_BVR_WCR_WVR_EL1(0),
>>>>  	DBG_BCR_BVR_WCR_WVR_EL1(1),
>>>> @@ -2225,6 +2235,52 @@ static const struct sys_reg_desc sys_reg_descs[] = {
>>>>  	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_DBGCLAIMCLR_EL1), trap_raz_wi },
>>>>  	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_DBGAUTHSTATUS_EL1), trap_dbgauthstatus_el1 },
>>>>  
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * BRBE branch record sysreg address space is interleaved between
>>>> +	 * corresponding BRBINF<N>_EL1, BRBSRC<N>_EL1, and BRBTGT<N>_EL1.
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(0),
>>>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(16),
>>>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(1),
>>>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(17),
>>>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(2),
>>>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(18),
>>>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(3),
>>>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(19),
>>>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(4),
>>>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(20),
>>>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(5),
>>>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(21),
>>>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(6),
>>>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(22),
>>>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(7),
>>>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(23),
>>>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(8),
>>>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(24),
>>>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(9),
>>>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(25),
>>>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(10),
>>>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(26),
>>>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(11),
>>>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(27),
>>>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(12),
>>>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(28),
>>>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(13),
>>>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(29),
>>>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(14),
>>>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(30),
>>>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(15),
>>>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(31),
>>>> +
>>>> +	/* Remaining BRBE sysreg addresses space */
>>>> +	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBCR_EL1), undef_access },
>>>> +	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBFCR_EL1), undef_access },
>>>> +	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBTS_EL1), undef_access },
>>>> +	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBINFINJ_EL1), undef_access },
>>>> +	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBSRCINJ_EL1), undef_access },
>>>> +	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBTGTINJ_EL1), undef_access },
>>>> +	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBIDR0_EL1), undef_access },
>>>> +
>>>>  	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_MDCCSR_EL0), trap_raz_wi },
>>>>  	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_DBGDTR_EL0), trap_raz_wi },
>>>>  	// DBGDTR[TR]X_EL0 share the same encoding
>>>> -- 
>>>> 2.25.1
>>>>

More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list