[RFC 5/8] KVM: arm64: Explicitly handle MDSELR_EL1 traps as UNDEFINED
Marc Zyngier
maz at kernel.org
Fri Apr 12 04:05:59 PDT 2024
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 03:41:23 +0100,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual at arm.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/5/24 15:45, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Fri, 05 Apr 2024 09:00:05 +0100,
> > Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual at arm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Currently read_sanitised_id_aa64dfr0_el1() caps the ID_AA64DFR0.DebugVer to
> >> ID_AA64DFR0_DebugVer_V8P8, resulting in FEAT_Debugv8p9 not being exposed to
> >> the guest. MDSELR_EL1 register access in the guest, is currently trapped by
> >> the existing configuration of the fine-grained traps.
> >
> > Please add support for the HDFGxTR2_EL2 registers in the trap routing
> > arrays, add support for the corresponding FGUs in the corresponding
>
> Afraid that I might not have enough background here to sufficiently understand
> your suggestion above, but nonetheless here is an attempt in this regard.
Thanks for at least giving it a try, this is *MUCH* appreciated.
>
> - Add HDFGRTR2_EL2/HDFGWTR2_EL2 to enum vcpu_sysreg
> enum vcpu_sysreg {
> ..........
> VNCR(HDFGRTR2_EL2),
> VNCR(HDFGWTR2_EL2),
> ..........
> }
Yes.
>
> - Add their VNCR mappings addresses
>
> #define VNCR_HDFGRTR2_EL2 0x1A0
> #define VNCR_HDFGWTR2_EL2 0x1B0
Yes.
>
> - Add HDFGRTR2_EL2/HDFGWTR2_EL2 to sys_reg_descs[]
>
> static const struct sys_reg_desc sys_reg_descs[] = {
> ..........
> EL2_REG_VNCR(HDFGRTR2_EL2, reset_val, 0),
> EL2_REG_VNCR(HDFGWTR2_EL2, reset_val, 0),
> ..........
> }
Yes
>
> - Add HDFGRTR2_GROUP to enum fgt_group_id
> - Add HDFGRTR2_GROUP to reg_to_fgt_group_id()
> - Update triage_sysreg_trap() for HDFGRTR2_GROUP
> - Update __activate_traps_hfgxtr() both for HDFGRTR2_EL2 and HDFGWTR2_EL2
> - Updated __deactivate_traps_hfgxtr() both for HDFGRTR2_EL2 and HDFGWTR2_EL2
Yes. Don't miss check_fgt_bit() though. You also need to update
kvm_init_nv_sysregs() to ensure that these new registers have the
correct RES0/RES1 behaviour depending on the supported feature set for
the guest.
>
> > structure, and condition the UNDEF on the lack of *guest* support for
> > the feature.
>
> Does something like the following looks OK for preventing guest access into
> MDSELR_EL1 instead ?
>
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> @@ -1711,6 +1711,19 @@ static u64 read_sanitised_id_aa64dfr0_el1(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> return val;
> }
>
> +static bool trap_mdselr_el1(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> + struct sys_reg_params *p,
> + const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
> +{
> + u64 dfr0 = read_sanitised_id_aa64dfr0_el1(vcpu, r);
> + int dver = cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field(dfr0, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_DebugVer_SHIFT);
> +
> + if (dver != ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_DebugVer_V8P9)
> + return undef_access(vcpu, p, r);
This is very cumbersome, and we now have a much better infrastructure
for the stuff that is handled with FGTs, see below.
> +
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> static int set_id_aa64dfr0_el1(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> const struct sys_reg_desc *rd,
> u64 val)
> @@ -2203,7 +2216,7 @@ static const struct sys_reg_desc sys_reg_descs[] = {
> { SYS_DESC(SYS_MDSCR_EL1), trap_debug_regs, reset_val, MDSCR_EL1, 0 },
> DBG_BCR_BVR_WCR_WVR_EL1(2),
> DBG_BCR_BVR_WCR_WVR_EL1(3),
> - { SYS_DESC(SYS_MDSELR_EL1), undef_access },
> + { SYS_DESC(SYS_MDSELR_EL1), trap_mdselr_el1 },
> DBG_BCR_BVR_WCR_WVR_EL1(4),
> DBG_BCR_BVR_WCR_WVR_EL1(5),
> DBG_BCR_BVR_WCR_WVR_EL1(6),
>
> I am sure this is rather incomplete, but will really appreciate if you could
> provide some details and pointers.
What is missing is the Fine-Grained-Undef part. You need to update
kvm_init_sysreg() so that kvm->arch.fgu[HDFGRTR2_GROUP] has all the
correct bits set for anything that needs to UNDEF depending on the
guest configuration.
For example, in your case, I'd expect to see something like:
if (!kvm_has_feat(kvm, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1, DebugVer, V8P9))
kvm->arch.fgu[HDFGRTR2_GROUP] |= ~(HDFGRTR2_EL2_nMDSELR_EL1 | [...]);
Then allowing the feature becomes conditioned on the bit being clear,
and the trap handler only needs to deal with the actual emulation, and
not the feature checking.
I appreciate that this is a lot to swallow, but I'd be very happy to
review patches implementing this and provide guidance. It is all
pretty simple, just that there is a lot of parts all over the place.
In the end, this is only about following the architecture.
Thanks again,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list