[PATCH v13 7/8] KVM: arm64: ioctl to fetch/store tags in a guest

[Catalin Marinas]

On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 02:09:50PM +0100, Steven Price wrote:
> On 04/06/2021 12:42, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 04, 2021 at 12:15:56PM +0100, Steven Price wrote:
> >> On 03/06/2021 18:13, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >>> On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 11:45:12AM +0100, Steven Price wrote:
> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> >>>> index 24223adae150..b3edde68bc3e 100644
> >>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> >>>> @@ -184,6 +184,17 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_events {
> >>>>  	__u32 reserved[12];
> >>>>  };
> >>>>  
> >>>> +struct kvm_arm_copy_mte_tags {
> >>>> +	__u64 guest_ipa;
> >>>> +	__u64 length;
> >>>> +	void __user *addr;
> >>>> +	__u64 flags;
> >>>> +	__u64 reserved[2];
> >>>> +};
> >>>> +
> >>>> +#define KVM_ARM_TAGS_TO_GUEST		0
> >>>> +#define KVM_ARM_TAGS_FROM_GUEST		1
> >>>> +
> >>>>  /* If you need to interpret the index values, here is the key: */
> >>>>  #define KVM_REG_ARM_COPROC_MASK		0x000000000FFF0000
> >>>>  #define KVM_REG_ARM_COPROC_SHIFT	16
> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> >>>> index e89a5e275e25..baa33359e477 100644
> >>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> >>>> @@ -1345,6 +1345,13 @@ long kvm_arch_vm_ioctl(struct file *filp,
> >>>>  
> >>>>  		return 0;
> >>>>  	}
> >>>> +	case KVM_ARM_MTE_COPY_TAGS: {
> >>>> +		struct kvm_arm_copy_mte_tags copy_tags;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +		if (copy_from_user(&copy_tags, argp, sizeof(copy_tags)))
> >>>> +			return -EFAULT;
> >>>> +		return kvm_vm_ioctl_mte_copy_tags(kvm, &copy_tags);
> >>>> +	}
> >>>
> >>> I wonder whether we need an update of the user structure following a
> >>> fault, like how much was copied etc. In case of an error, some tags were
> >>> copied and the VMM may want to skip the page before continuing. But here
> >>> there's no such information provided.
> >>>
> >>> On the ptrace interface, we return 0 on the syscall if any bytes were
> >>> copied and update iov_len to such number. Maybe you want to still return
> >>> an error here but updating copy_tags.length would be nice (and, of
> >>> course, a copy_to_user() back).
> >>
> >> Good idea - as you suggest I'll make it update length with the number of
> >> bytes not processed. Although in general I think we're expecting the VMM
> >> to know where the memory is so this is more of a programming error - but
> >> could still be useful for debugging.
> > 
> > Or update it to the number of bytes copied to be consistent with
> > ptrace()'s iov.len. On success, the structure is effectively left
> > unchanged.
> 
> I was avoiding that because it confuses the error code when the initial
> copy_from_user() fails. In that case the structure is clearly unchanged,
> so you can only tell from a -EFAULT return that nothing happened. By
> returning the number of bytes left you can return an error code along
> with the information that the copy only half completed.
> 
> It also seems cleaner to leave the structure unchanged if e.g. the flags
> or reserved fields are invalid rather than having to set length=0 to
> signal that nothing was done.
> 
> Although I do feel like arguing whether to use a ptrace() interface or a
> copy_{to,from}_user() interface is somewhat ridiculous considering
> neither are exactly considered good.
> 
> Rather than changing the structure we could return either an error code
> (if nothing was copied) or the number of bytes left. That way ioctl()==0
> means complete success, >0 means partial success and <0 means complete
> failure and provides a detailed error code. The ioctl() can be repeated
> (with adjusted pointers) if it returns >0 and a detailed error is needed.

That would be more like read/write (nearly, those always return the
amount copied). Anyway, I don't have any strong preference, I'll leave
the details up to you as long as there is some indication of how much
was copied or left.

-- 
Catalin