[PATCH] KVM: arm64: Disable TRBE Trace Buffer Unit when running in guest context

[James Clark]

On 16/02/2026 5:32 pm, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 02:29:31PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 13:09:59 +0000,
>> Will Deacon <will at kernel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> The nVHE world-switch code relies on zeroing TRFCR_EL1 to disable trace
>>> generation in guest context when self-hosted TRBE is in use by the host.
>>>
>>> Per D3.2.1 ("Controls to prohibit trace at Exception levels"), clearing
>>> TRFCR_EL1 means that trace generation is prohibited at EL1 and EL0 but
>>> per R_YCHKJ the Trace Buffer Unit will still be enabled if
>>> TRBLIMITR_EL1.E is set. R_SJFRQ goes on to state that, when enabled, the
>>> Trace Buffer Unit can perform address translation for the "owning
>>> exception level" even when it is out of context.
>>
>> Great. So TRBE violates all the principles that we hold true in the
>> architecture. Does SPE suffer from the same level of brokenness?
>>
>>> Consequently, we can end up in a state where TRBE performs speculative
>>> page-table walks for a host VA/IPA in guest/hypervisor context depending
>>> on the value of MDCR_EL2.E2TB, which changes over world-switch. The
>>> result appears to be a heady mixture of data corruption and hardware
>>> lockups.
>>>
>>> Extend the TRBE world-switch code to clear TRBLIMITR_EL1.E after
>>> draining the buffer, restoring the register on return to the host.
>>>
>>> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz at kernel.org>
>>> Cc: Oliver Upton <oupton at kernel.org>
>>> Cc: James Clark <james.clark at linaro.org>
>>> Cc: Leo Yan <leo.yan at arm.com>
>>> Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose at arm.com>
>>> Cc: Fuad Tabba <tabba at google.com>
>>> Fixes: a1319260bf62 ("arm64: KVM: Enable access to TRBE support for host")
>>> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will at kernel.org>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> NOTE: This is *untested* as I don't have a TRBE-capable device that can
>>> run upstream but I noticed this by inspection when triaging occasional
>>> hardware lockups on systems using a 6.12-based kernel with TRBE running
>>> at the same time as a vCPU is loaded. This code has changed quite a bit
>>> over time, so stable backports are not entirely straightforward.
>>> Hopefully James/Leo/Suzuki can help us test if folks agree with the
>>> general approach taken here.
>>>
>>>   arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h  |  1 +
>>>   arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/debug-sr.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>>>   2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>> index ac7f970c7883..a932cf043b83 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>> @@ -746,6 +746,7 @@ struct kvm_host_data {
>>>   		u64 pmscr_el1;
>>>   		/* Self-hosted trace */
>>>   		u64 trfcr_el1;
>>> +		u64 trblimitr_el1;
>>>   		/* Values of trap registers for the host before guest entry. */
>>>   		u64 mdcr_el2;
>>>   		u64 brbcr_el1;
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/debug-sr.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/debug-sr.c
>>> index 2a1c0f49792b..fd389a26bc59 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/debug-sr.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/debug-sr.c
>>> @@ -57,12 +57,27 @@ static void __trace_do_switch(u64 *saved_trfcr, u64 new_trfcr)
>>>   	write_sysreg_el1(new_trfcr, SYS_TRFCR);
>>>   }
>>>   
>>> -static bool __trace_needs_drain(void)
>>> +static void __trace_drain_and_disable(void)
>>>   {
>>> -	if (is_protected_kvm_enabled() && host_data_test_flag(HAS_TRBE))
>>> -		return read_sysreg_s(SYS_TRBLIMITR_EL1) & TRBLIMITR_EL1_E;
>>> +	u64 *trblimitr_el1 = host_data_ptr(host_debug_state.trblimitr_el1);
>>>   
>>> -	return host_data_test_flag(TRBE_ENABLED);
>>> +	*trblimitr_el1 = 0;
>>> +
>>> +	if (is_protected_kvm_enabled()) {
>>> +		if (!host_data_test_flag(HAS_TRBE))
>>> +			return;
>>> +	} else {
>>> +		if (!host_data_test_flag(TRBE_ENABLED))
>>> +			return;
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>> +	*trblimitr_el1 = read_sysreg_s(SYS_TRBLIMITR_EL1);
>>> +	if (*trblimitr_el1 & TRBLIMITR_EL1_E) {
>>> +		isb();
>>> +		tsb_csync();
>>> +		write_sysreg_s(0, SYS_TRBLIMITR_EL1);
>>> +		isb();
>>> +	}
>>
>> Doesn't this mean we should be able to get rid of most of the TRFCR
>> messing about that litters the entry/exit code and leave that to VHE
>> only?
> 
> I'm not sure we can get rid of an awful lot: if the host is using TRBE,
> then we still need to stop trace generation, drain the buffer and
> disable the buffer. Or are you thinking of some other TRFCR accesses?
> 
> Looking at the TRBE driver, I _think_ the idea is that the trace
> hardware can generate trace to ETM/Coresight instead of memory in some
> cases and so you can enable it at boot time or via sysfs and then
> profile the whole machine, presumably using an expensive external box +
> cable or via some other coresight "sink" component. But I'm really
> guessing based on the driver; James and Leo will know for sure.

Exactly, there are other sink types. For example ETF has SRAM or ETR 
uses physical addresses.

> 
> I've tried (and failed) to reconcile the above with what is written in
> the Arm ARM regarding self-hosted trace with TRBE.
> 
>> And even then, I'm tempted to simply get rid of any sort of
>> guest-only tracing, given that TRBE is not capable of representing
>> exceptions that are synthesised by the host, making it the resulting
>> traces useless.
> 
> I think that effectively means reverting the series merged from here:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250106142446.628923-1-james.clark@linaro.org/
> 
> but then we still need to clear TRBLIMITR_EL1.E.
> 
> Will

Removing that series would actually have the effect of turning guest 
trace on in nVHE for non-TRBE sinks. The reason for implementing the 
filtering was to turn guest trace off because a user didn't want to see it.