[PATCH v3] KVM: arm64: Use BTI for nvhe

[Mostafa Saleh]

Hi Sudeep,

On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 08:25:29PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 04:27:04PM +0000, Mostafa Saleh wrote:
> > Hi Sudeep,
> > 
> > On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 03:33:39PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > > Hi Mostafa,
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 02:18:09PM +0000, Mostafa Saleh wrote:
> > > > Hi Sudeep,
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, Jul 04, 2023 at 02:41:36PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 03:08:45PM +0000, Mostafa Saleh wrote:
> > > > > > CONFIG_ARM64_BTI_KERNEL compiles the kernel to support ARMv8.5-BTI.
> > > > > > However, the nvhe code doesn't make use of it as it doesn't map any
> > > > > > pages with Guarded Page(GP) bit.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > kvm pgtable code is modified to map executable pages with GP bit
> > > > > > if BTI is enabled for the kernel.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > At hyp init, SCTLR_EL2.BT is set to 1 to match EL1 configuration
> > > > > > (SCTLR_EL1.BT1) set in bti_enable().
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > One difference between kernel and nvhe code, is that the kernel maps
> > > > > > .text with GP while nvhe maps all the executable pages, this makes
> > > > > > nvhe code need to deal with special initialization code coming from
> > > > > > other executable sections (.idmap.text).
> > > > > > For this we need to add bti instruction at the beginning of
> > > > > > __kvm_handle_stub_hvc as it can be called by  __host_hvc through
> > > > > > branch instruction(br) and unlike SYM_FUNC_START, SYM_CODE_START
> > > > > > doesn’t add bti instruction at the beginning, and it can’t be modified
> > > > > > to add it as it is used with vector tables.
> > > > > > Another solution which is more intrusive is to convert
> > > > > > __kvm_handle_stub_hvc to a function and inject “bti jc” instead of
> > > > > > “bti c” in SYM_FUNC_START
> > > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > I was chasing a bug in linux-next yesterday with protected nVHE(pKVM) and
> > > > > cpuidle enabled. The system fails to boot. I just bisected the issue to this
> > > > > patch and also saw this patch landed in the linus tree yesterday/today.
> > > > 
> > > > One of the challenges of BTI is that we need to add explicit BTI instructions
> > > > for assembly code. I checked the code to make sure that nothing was missing,
> > > > but maybe this is not the case.
> > > > Can you please share more about the issue (is ESR a Branch Target Exception,
> > > > call stack...) if possible.
> > > 
> > > I haven't debugged it any further, just reported it as soon as I bisected it.
> > > Reverting this get back the booting system. I am not sure if anything is going
> > > wrong when the CPU is entering suspend(highly unlikely in normal scenario but
> > > I am not so sure with pKVM trapping these PSCI calls now) or when it is woken
> > > up and resuming back. IIUC this now will happen via kvm_hyp_cpu_resume->
> > > __kvm_hyp_init_cpu->___kvm_hyp_init. 
> > 
> > Thanks a lot for the information.
> > 
> > I checked this now, and I believe I found an issue. I see that __kvm_hyp_init_cpu
> > calls kvm_host_psci_cpu_entry indirectly and there is no BTI there.
> > I think this is the only C function that needs special handling.
> >
> 
> So it is in the wake up path. Thanks for the description, now I understand
> the issue and fix better.
> 
> > Can you please check if this solves the issue?
> >
> 
> Yes, the below patch fixed the issue. Feel free to add when you post the
> formal patch.
> 
> Reported-and-Tested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla at arm.com>

Thanks for testing the patch, I will post it on the list.

> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/host.S b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/host.S
> > index c87c63133e10..7df63f364c3c 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/host.S
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/host.S
> > @@ -297,3 +297,8 @@ SYM_CODE_START(__kvm_hyp_host_forward_smc)
> >  
> >         ret
> >  SYM_CODE_END(__kvm_hyp_host_forward_smc)
> > +
> > +SYM_CODE_START(kvm_host_psci_cpu_entry)
> > +       bti j
> > +       b __kvm_host_psci_cpu_entry
> > +SYM_CODE_END(kvm_host_psci_cpu_entry)
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/psci-relay.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/psci-relay.c
> > index 08508783ec3d..24543d2a3490 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/psci-relay.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/psci-relay.c
> > @@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ static int psci_system_suspend(u64 func_id, struct kvm_cpu_context *host_ctxt)
> >                          __hyp_pa(init_params), 0);
> >  }
> >  
> > -asmlinkage void __noreturn kvm_host_psci_cpu_entry(bool is_cpu_on)
> > +asmlinkage void __noreturn __kvm_host_psci_cpu_entry(bool is_cpu_on)
> >  {
> >         struct psci_boot_args *boot_args;
> >         struct kvm_cpu_context *host_ctxt;
> > 
> > 
> > > > Also, is this with CONFIG_ARM_PSCI_CPUIDLE?
> > > 
> > > Yes, basically the cpus can enter cpu_suspend which IIUC pKVM traps and
> > > handle for the host.
> > 
> > My current setup has no CONFIG_ARM_PSCI_CPUIDLE?, I will try to find
> > something I can test with.
> >
> 
> No worries, I can help until you find one.
> 
> 
> > > > 
> > > > > Not sure if this is something to do with the fact that pKVM skips to
> > > > > __kvm_handle_stub_hvc in __host_hvc.
> > > 
> > > Sorry, my bad. I meant pKVM skips calling __kvm_handle_stub_hvc in __host_hvc
> > > and jumps to __host_exit directly. Sorry for that, one wrong "to" changed the
> > > whole meaning.
> > 
> > I don't see an issue in this, as this path has no indirect branches.
> >
> 
> Understood.

Thanks,
Mostafa