[PATCH v2 1/8] KVM: arm64: Unconditionally save+flush host FPSIMD/SVE/SME state

[Marc Zyngier]

On Fri, 07 Feb 2025 13:21:44 +0000,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 12:27:51PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 02:10:55PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > There are several problems with the way hyp code lazily saves the host's
> > > FPSIMD/SVE state, including:
> > > 
> > > * Host SVE being discarded unexpectedly due to inconsistent
> > >   configuration of TIF_SVE and CPACR_ELx.ZEN. This has been seen to
> > >   result in QEMU crashes where SVE is used by memmove(), as reported by
> > >   Eric Auger:
> > > 
> > >   https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-68997
> > > 
> > > * Host SVE state is discarded *after* modification by ptrace, which was an
> > >   unintentional ptrace ABI change introduced with lazy discarding of SVE state.
> > > 
> > > * The host FPMR value can be discarded when running a non-protected VM,
> > >   where FPMR support is not exposed to a VM, and that VM uses
> > >   FPSIMD/SVE. In these cases the hyp code does not save the host's FPMR
> > >   before unbinding the host's FPSIMD/SVE/SME state, leaving a stale
> > >   value in memory.
> > 
> > How hard would it be to write tests for these three scenarios? If we
> > had something to exercise the relevant paths then...
> >
> > > ... and so this eager save+flush probably needs to be backported to ALL
> > > stable trees.
> > 
> > ... this backporting might be a little easier to be sure about?
> 
> For the first case I have a quick and dirty test, which I've pushed to
> my arm64/kvm/fpsimd-tests branch in my kernel.org repo:
> 
>   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mark/linux.git/
>   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mark/linux.git
> 
> For the last case it should be possible to do something similar, but I
> hadn't had the time to dig in to the KVM selftests infrastructure and
> figure out how to confiugre the guest appropriately.
> 
> For the ptrace case, the same symptoms can be provoked outside of KVM
> (and I'm currently working to fix that). From my PoV the important thing
> is that this fix happens to remove KVM from the set of cases the other
> fixes need to care about.
> 
> FWIW I was assuming that I'd be handling the upstream backports, and I'd
> be testing with the test above and some additional assertions hacked
> into the kernel for testing.

I agree that having the tests around would be great, if only to catch
potential repressions.

However, I really don't want to gate the fixes on these tests. So
unless someone shouts, I intend to take this series in very shortly.
We can always merge the tests as a subsequent improvement.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.