[PATCH V16 2/8] KVM: arm64: Prevent guest accesses into BRBE system registers/instructions
Suzuki K Poulose
suzuki.poulose at arm.com
Thu Feb 29 03:45:08 PST 2024
On 27/02/2024 11:13, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>
>
> 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 ?
This has nothing to do with the Guest visibility of the BRBE. This is
specifically for host "userspace" (via MRS emulation).
>>>
>>> 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.
This is by virtue of the masking we do in the kvm/sysreg.c below.
>
>>
>> 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;
>>>>> +
This controls what the guest sees.
Suzuki
>>>>> 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