[PATCH 10/12] KVM: arm64: nv: Add SW walker for AT S1 emulation

[Alexandru Elisei]

Hi Marc,

On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 05:57:58PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> In order to plug the brokenness of our current AT implementation,
> we need a SW walker that is going to... err.. walk the S1 tables
> and tell us what it finds.
> 
> Of course, it builds on top of our S2 walker, and share similar
> concepts. The beauty of it is that since it uses kvm_read_guest(),
> it is able to bring back pages that have been otherwise evicted.
> 
> This is then plugged in the two AT S1 emulation functions as
> a "slow path" fallback. I'm not sure it is that slow, but hey.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz at kernel.org>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kvm/at.c | 538 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 520 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/at.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/at.c
> index 71e3390b43b4c..8452273cbff6d 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/at.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/at.c
> @@ -4,9 +4,305 @@
>   * Author: Jintack Lim <jintack.lim at linaro.org>
>   */
>  
> +#include <linux/kvm_host.h>
> +
> +#include <asm/esr.h>
>  #include <asm/kvm_hyp.h>
>  #include <asm/kvm_mmu.h>
>  
> +struct s1_walk_info {
> +	u64	     baddr;
> +	unsigned int max_oa_bits;
> +	unsigned int pgshift;
> +	unsigned int txsz;
> +	int 	     sl;
> +	bool	     hpd;
> +	bool	     be;
> +	bool	     nvhe;
> +	bool	     s2;
> +};
> +
> +struct s1_walk_result {
> +	union {
> +		struct {
> +			u64	desc;
> +			u64	pa;
> +			s8	level;
> +			u8	APTable;
> +			bool	UXNTable;
> +			bool	PXNTable;
> +		};
> +		struct {
> +			u8	fst;
> +			bool	ptw;
> +			bool	s2;
> +		};
> +	};
> +	bool	failed;
> +};
> +
> +static void fail_s1_walk(struct s1_walk_result *wr, u8 fst, bool ptw, bool s2)
> +{
> +	wr->fst		= fst;
> +	wr->ptw		= ptw;
> +	wr->s2		= s2;
> +	wr->failed	= true;
> +}
> +
> +#define S1_MMU_DISABLED		(-127)
> +
> +static int setup_s1_walk(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct s1_walk_info *wi,
> +			 struct s1_walk_result *wr, const u64 va, const int el)
> +{
> +	u64 sctlr, tcr, tg, ps, ia_bits, ttbr;
> +	unsigned int stride, x;
> +	bool va55, tbi;
> +
> +	wi->nvhe = el == 2 && !vcpu_el2_e2h_is_set(vcpu);

Where 'el' is computed in handle_at_slow() as:

	/*
	 * We only get here from guest EL2, so the translation regime
	 * AT applies to is solely defined by {E2H,TGE}.
	 */
	el = (vcpu_el2_e2h_is_set(vcpu) &&
	      vcpu_el2_tge_is_set(vcpu)) ? 2 : 1;

I think 'nvhe' will always be false ('el' is 2 only when E2H is set).

I'm curious about what 'el' represents. The translation regime for the AT
instruction?

Thanks,
Alex