Re: [PATCH v15 26/37] KVM: arm64: WARN on injected undef exceptions

[Steven Price]

On 15/07/2026 17:25, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 17:15:31 +0100,
> Steven Price <steven.price@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 15/07/2026 16:46, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 15:28:28 +0100,
>>> Steven Price <steven.price@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The RMM doesn't allow injection of a undefined exception into a realm
>>>> guest. Add a WARN to catch if this ever happens.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Steven Price <steven.price@xxxxxxx>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@xxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> Changes since v6:
>>>>  * if (x) WARN(1, ...) makes no sense, just WARN(x, ...)!
>>>> ---
>>>>  arch/arm64/kvm/inject_fault.c | 1 +
>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/inject_fault.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/inject_fault.c
>>>> index 6492397b73d7..613f223bc7a3 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/inject_fault.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/inject_fault.c
>>>> @@ -327,6 +327,7 @@ void kvm_inject_size_fault(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>   */
>>>>  void kvm_inject_undefined(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>  {
>>>> +	WARN(vcpu_is_rec(vcpu), "Unexpected undefined exception injection to REC");
>>>>  	if (vcpu_el1_is_32bit(vcpu))
>>>>  		inject_undef32(vcpu);
>>>>  	else
>>>
>>> No. WARN_ONCE at a push, but even then, this looks dodgy.
>>
>> Yep WARN_ONCE() would be better. This function should never be called
>> for a realm guest.
>>
>>> Exceptions must be injectable. Otherwise, how do you respond to, for
>>> example, a sysreg access for a feature that is hidden from the guest?
>>
>> The RMM doesn't allow the host to inject exceptions - with the exception
>> of SEA after a host-emulated MMIO.
>>
>>> Will the RMM perform this in KVM's stead?
>>
>> Yes the RMM would have to handle this for the likes of sysreg accesses.
>> The host doesn't control the trapping of sysreg accesses. There are a
>> few GIC-related registers which are forwarded to the host ("REC exit due
>> to system register access") but generally the handling of sysregs is
>> entirely internal to the RMM.
> 
> Then the only option is not to just warn, but to mark all realms as
> dead and refuse to run them any further. If we can't inject an
> exception and that the RMM isn't doing its job, I can't see how we can
> continue at all.

You've got a point - I'm not sure whether it's entirely reasonable to
refuse to run any realm, but it certainly would be sensible to mark the
guest which triggers this as dead. Would a KVM_BUG() be more appropriate
here?

Thanks,
Steve