[PATCH v1 6/7] KVM: arm64: Eagerly restore host fpsimd/sve state in pKVM
Fuad Tabba
tabba at google.com
Mon May 20 00:37:22 PDT 2024
Hi Oliver,
On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 6:09 PM Oliver Upton <oliver.upton at linux.dev> wrote:
>
> Hi Fuad,
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 02:18:13PM +0100, Fuad Tabba wrote:
> > static void kvm_hyp_save_fpsimd_host(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > {
> > - __fpsimd_save_state(*host_data_ptr(fpsimd_state));
> > + /*
> > + * Non-protected kvm relies on the host restoring its sve state.
> > + * Protected kvm restores the host's sve state as not to reveal that
> > + * fpsimd was used by a guest nor leak upper sve bits.
> > + */
> > + if (unlikely(is_protected_kvm_enabled() && system_supports_sve())) {
> > + __hyp_sve_save_host();
> > +
> > + /* Re-enable SVE traps for guests that do not support it. */
> > + if (!vcpu_has_sve(vcpu))
> > + sysreg_clear_set(cptr_el2, 0, CPTR_EL2_TZ);
>
> This doesn't account for hVHE. I wonder we'd be better off abstracting
> CPTR_EL2 behind a helper wherever it gets used in nVHE and translate
> into the VHE-format behind the scenes:
Right! Too many modes to keep track of :)
Abstracting cptr_el2 would make things clearer and less error-prone.
I'll do that on the respin.
Cheers,
/fuad
>
> static inline void __cptr_clear_set_hvhe(u64 cptr_clr, u64 cptr_set)
> {
> u64 clr = 0, set = 0;
>
> if (cptr_clr & CPTR_EL2_TFP)
> set |= CPACR_ELx_FPEN;
> if (cptr_clr & CPTR_EL2_TZ)
> set |= CPACR_ELx_ZEN;
> if (cptr_clr & CPTR_EL2_TSM)
> set |= CPACR_ELx_SMEN;
>
> if (cptr_set & CPTR_EL2_TFP)
> clr |= CPACR_ELx_FPEN;
> if (cptr_set & CPTR_EL2_TZ)
> clr |= CPACR_ELx_ZEN;
> if (cptr_set & CPTR_EL2_TSM)
> clr |= CPACR_ELx_SMEN;
>
> sysreg_clear_set(cpacr_el1, clr, set);
> }
>
> static inline void cptr_clear_set(u64 clr, u64 set)
> {
> if (has_hvhe())
> __cptr_clear_set_hvhe(clr, set);
> else
> sysreg_clear_set(cptr_el2, clr, set);
> }
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Oliver
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list