Re: [RFC PATCH v3 04/11] KVM: arm64: Setup a framework for hypercall bitmap firmware registers

[Reiji Watanabe]

Hi Raghu,

On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 11:49 AM Raghavendra Rao Ananta
<rananta@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> KVM regularly introduces new hypercall services to the guests without
> any consent from the Virtual Machine Manager (VMM). This means, the
> guests can observe hypercall services in and out as they migrate
> across various host kernel versions. This could be a major problem
> if the guest discovered a hypercall, started using it, and after
> getting migrated to an older kernel realizes that it's no longer
> available. Depending on how the guest handles the change, there's
> a potential chance that the guest would just panic.
>
> As a result, there's a need for the VMM to elect the services that
> it wishes the guest to discover. VMM can elect these services based
> on the kernels spread across its (migration) fleet. To remedy this,
> extend the existing firmware psuedo-registers, such as
> KVM_REG_ARM_PSCI_VERSION, for all the hypercall services available.
>
> These firmware registers are categorized based on the service call
> owners, and unlike the existing firmware psuedo-registers, they hold
> the features supported in the form of a bitmap.
>
> The capability, KVM_CAP_ARM_HVC_FW_REG_BMAP, is used to announce
> this extension, which returns the number of psuedo-firmware
> registers supported. During the VM initialization, the registers
> holds an upper-limit of the features supported by the corresponding
> registers. It's expected that the VMMs discover the features
> provided by each register via GET_ONE_REG, and writeback the
> desired values using SET_ONE_REG. KVM allows this modification
> only until the VM has started.
>
> Older VMMs can simply ignore the capability and the hypercall services
> will be exposed unconditionally to the guests, thus ensuring backward
> compatibility.
>
> In this patch, the framework adds the register only for ARM's standard
> secure services (owner value 4). Currently, this includes support only
> for ARM True Random Number Generator (TRNG) service, with bit-0 of the
> register representing mandatory features of v1.0. Other services are
> momentarily added in the upcoming patches.
>
> Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h |  12 ++++
>  arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h |   4 ++
>  arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c              |   4 ++
>  arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c       | 103 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  arch/arm64/kvm/trng.c             |   8 +--
>  include/kvm/arm_hypercalls.h      |   6 ++
>  6 files changed, 129 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index 2a5f7f38006f..a32cded0371b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -102,6 +102,15 @@ struct kvm_s2_mmu {
>  struct kvm_arch_memory_slot {
>  };
>
> +/**
> + * struct kvm_hvc_desc: KVM ARM64 hypercall descriptor
> + *
> + * @hvc_std_bmap: Bitmap of standard secure service calls
> + */
> +struct kvm_hvc_desc {
> +       u64 hvc_std_bmap;
> +};
> +
>  struct kvm_arch {
>         struct kvm_s2_mmu mmu;
>
> @@ -137,6 +146,9 @@ struct kvm_arch {
>
>         /* Memory Tagging Extension enabled for the guest */
>         bool mte_enabled;
> +
> +       /* Hypercall firmware register' descriptor */
> +       struct kvm_hvc_desc hvc_desc;
>  };
>
>  struct kvm_vcpu_fault_info {
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> index b3edde68bc3e..0d6f29c58456 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> @@ -281,6 +281,10 @@ struct kvm_arm_copy_mte_tags {
>  #define KVM_REG_ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_2_NOT_REQUIRED       3
>  #define KVM_REG_ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_2_ENABLED            (1U << 4)
>
> +#define KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP                   KVM_REG_ARM_FW_REG(3)
> +#define KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BIT_TRNG_V1_0          BIT(0)
> +#define KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP_BIT_MAX           0       /* Last valid bit */
> +
>  /* SVE registers */
>  #define KVM_REG_ARM64_SVE              (0x15 << KVM_REG_ARM_COPROC_SHIFT)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> index e4727dc771bf..56fe81565235 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> @@ -156,6 +156,7 @@ int kvm_arch_init_vm(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long type)
>         kvm->arch.max_vcpus = kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus();
>
>         set_default_spectre(kvm);
> +       kvm_arm_init_hypercalls(kvm);
>
>         return ret;
>  out_free_stage2_pgd:
> @@ -283,6 +284,9 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension(struct kvm *kvm, long ext)
>         case KVM_CAP_ARM_PTRAUTH_GENERIC:
>                 r = system_has_full_ptr_auth();
>                 break;
> +       case KVM_CAP_ARM_HVC_FW_REG_BMAP:
> +               r = kvm_arm_num_fw_bmap_regs();
> +               break;

Looking at the discussion for the v2 series,

 https://lore.kernel.org/kvmarm/20211130101958.fcdqthphyhxzvzla@xxxxxxxxxx/

I assume that the number of the pseudo-firmware bitmap registers
will be used to clear pseudo firmware bitmap registers that
userspace doesn't know.
I'm wondering how userspace can identify which pseudo-firmware
registers that KVM_GET_REG_LIST provides are the pseudo-firmware
bitmap registers that it doesn't know.
For instance, suppose pseudo-firmware registers that KVM_GET_REG_LIST
provides are KVM_REG_ARM_FW_REG(0) to KVM_REG_ARM_FW_REG(9), userspace
doesn't knows KVM_REG_ARM_FW_REG(6) to KVM_REG_ARM_FW_REG(9), and
KVM_CAP_ARM_HVC_FW_REG_BMAP returns 5, how can userspace identify
remaining two bitmap registers from those 4 (fw-reg #6 to #9)
firmware registers ?


>         default:
>                 r = 0;
>         }
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c
> index 3c2fcf31ad3d..06243e4670eb 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c
> @@ -58,6 +58,29 @@ static void kvm_ptp_get_time(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 *val)
>         val[3] = lower_32_bits(cycles);
>  }
>
> +static bool kvm_arm_fw_reg_feat_enabled(u64 reg_bmap, u64 feat_bit)
> +{
> +       return reg_bmap & feat_bit;
> +}
> +
> +bool kvm_hvc_call_supported(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 func_id)
> +{
> +       struct kvm_hvc_desc *hvc_desc = &vcpu->kvm->arch.hvc_desc;
> +
> +       switch (func_id) {
> +       case ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_VERSION:
> +       case ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_FEATURES:
> +       case ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_GET_UUID:
> +       case ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_RND32:
> +       case ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_RND64:
> +               return kvm_arm_fw_reg_feat_enabled(hvc_desc->hvc_std_bmap,
> +                                               KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BIT_TRNG_V1_0);
> +       default:
> +               /* By default, allow the services that aren't listed here */
> +               return true;
> +       }
> +}

kvm_hvc_call_supported() could return true even for @func_id that
kvm_hvc_call_handler() returns -EINVAL for.  Is this behavior what
you really want ?
If so, IMHO the function name might be a bit mis-leading.
"kvm_hvc_call_disabled" (and flip the return value)
might be closer to what it does(?).


> +
>  int kvm_hvc_call_handler(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  {
>         u32 func_id = smccc_get_function(vcpu);
> @@ -65,6 +88,9 @@ int kvm_hvc_call_handler(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>         u32 feature;
>         gpa_t gpa;
>
> +       if (!kvm_hvc_call_supported(vcpu, func_id))
> +               goto out;
> +
>         switch (func_id) {
>         case ARM_SMCCC_VERSION_FUNC_ID:
>                 val[0] = ARM_SMCCC_VERSION_1_1;
> @@ -143,6 +169,7 @@ int kvm_hvc_call_handler(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>                 return kvm_psci_call(vcpu);
>         }
>
> +out:
>         smccc_set_retval(vcpu, val[0], val[1], val[2], val[3]);
>         return 1;
>  }
> @@ -153,9 +180,25 @@ static const u64 kvm_arm_fw_reg_ids[] = {
>         KVM_REG_ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_2,
>  };
>
> +static const u64 kvm_arm_fw_reg_bmap_ids[] = {
> +       KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP,
> +};
> +
> +void kvm_arm_init_hypercalls(struct kvm *kvm)
> +{
> +       struct kvm_hvc_desc *hvc_desc = &kvm->arch.hvc_desc;
> +
> +       hvc_desc->hvc_std_bmap = ARM_SMCCC_STD_FEATURES;
> +}
> +
> +int kvm_arm_num_fw_bmap_regs(void)
> +{
> +       return ARRAY_SIZE(kvm_arm_fw_reg_bmap_ids);
> +}
> +
>  int kvm_arm_get_fw_num_regs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  {
> -       return ARRAY_SIZE(kvm_arm_fw_reg_ids);
> +       return ARRAY_SIZE(kvm_arm_fw_reg_ids) + kvm_arm_num_fw_bmap_regs();
>  }
>
>  int kvm_arm_copy_fw_reg_indices(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 __user *uindices)
> @@ -167,6 +210,11 @@ int kvm_arm_copy_fw_reg_indices(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 __user *uindices)
>                         return -EFAULT;
>         }
>
> +       for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(kvm_arm_fw_reg_bmap_ids); i++) {
> +               if (put_user(kvm_arm_fw_reg_bmap_ids[i], uindices++))
> +                       return -EFAULT;
> +       }
> +
>         return 0;
>  }
>
> @@ -211,9 +259,20 @@ static int get_kernel_wa_level(u64 regid)
>         return -EINVAL;
>  }
>
> +static void
> +kvm_arm_get_fw_reg_bmap(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 fw_reg_bmap, u64 *val)
> +{
> +       struct kvm *kvm = vcpu->kvm;
> +
> +       mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
> +       *val = fw_reg_bmap;
> +       mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);

Why does it need to hold the lock ? (Wouldn't READ_ONCE be enough ?)


> +}
> +
>  int kvm_arm_get_fw_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct kvm_one_reg *reg)
>  {
>         void __user *uaddr = (void __user *)(long)reg->addr;
> +       struct kvm_hvc_desc *hvc_desc = &vcpu->kvm->arch.hvc_desc;
>         u64 val;
>
>         switch (reg->id) {
> @@ -224,6 +283,9 @@ int kvm_arm_get_fw_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct kvm_one_reg *reg)
>         case KVM_REG_ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_2:
>                 val = get_kernel_wa_level(reg->id) & KVM_REG_FEATURE_LEVEL_MASK;
>                 break;
> +       case KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP:
> +               kvm_arm_get_fw_reg_bmap(vcpu, hvc_desc->hvc_std_bmap, &val);
> +               break;
>         default:
>                 return -ENOENT;
>         }
> @@ -234,6 +296,43 @@ int kvm_arm_get_fw_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct kvm_one_reg *reg)
>         return 0;
>  }
>
> +static int kvm_arm_set_fw_reg_bmap(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 reg_id, u64 val)
> +{
> +       int ret = 0;
> +       struct kvm *kvm = vcpu->kvm;
> +       struct kvm_hvc_desc *hvc_desc = &kvm->arch.hvc_desc;
> +       u64 *fw_reg_bmap, fw_reg_features;
> +
> +       switch (reg_id) {
> +       case KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP:
> +               fw_reg_bmap = &hvc_desc->hvc_std_bmap;
> +               fw_reg_features = ARM_SMCCC_STD_FEATURES;
> +               break;
> +       default:
> +               return -ENOENT;
> +       }
> +
> +       /* Check for unsupported bit */
> +       if (val & ~fw_reg_features)
> +               return -EINVAL;
> +
> +       mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
> +
> +       /*
> +        * If the VM (any vCPU) has already started running, return success
> +        * if there's no change in the value. Else, return -EBUSY.
> +        */
> +       if (kvm_vm_has_started(kvm)) {
> +               ret = *fw_reg_bmap != val ? -EBUSY : 0;
> +               goto out;
> +       }
> +
> +       *fw_reg_bmap = val;
> +out:
> +       mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
> +       return ret;
> +}
> +
>  int kvm_arm_set_fw_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct kvm_one_reg *reg)
>  {
>         void __user *uaddr = (void __user *)(long)reg->addr;
> @@ -310,6 +409,8 @@ int kvm_arm_set_fw_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct kvm_one_reg *reg)
>                         return -EINVAL;
>
>                 return 0;
> +       case KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP:
> +               return kvm_arm_set_fw_reg_bmap(vcpu, reg->id, val);
>         default:
>                 return -ENOENT;
>         }
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/trng.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/trng.c
> index 99bdd7103c9c..23f912514b06 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/trng.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/trng.c
> @@ -60,14 +60,8 @@ int kvm_trng_call(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>                 val = ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_VERSION_1_0;
>                 break;
>         case ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_FEATURES:
> -               switch (smccc_get_arg1(vcpu)) {
> -               case ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_VERSION:
> -               case ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_FEATURES:
> -               case ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_GET_UUID:
> -               case ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_RND32:
> -               case ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_RND64:
> +               if (kvm_hvc_call_supported(vcpu, smccc_get_arg1(vcpu)))
>                         val = TRNG_SUCCESS;

kvm_hvc_call_supported() returns true for any values that are
not explicitly listed in kvm_hvc_call_supported() (i.e. it returns
true even for @func_id that are not any of ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_*).
So, I don't think it can simply use the current kvm_hvc_call_supported.

Thanks,
Reiji

> -               }
>                 break;
>         case ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_GET_UUID:
>                 smccc_set_retval(vcpu, le32_to_cpu(u[0]), le32_to_cpu(u[1]),
> diff --git a/include/kvm/arm_hypercalls.h b/include/kvm/arm_hypercalls.h
> index 5d38628a8d04..8fe68d8d6d96 100644
> --- a/include/kvm/arm_hypercalls.h
> +++ b/include/kvm/arm_hypercalls.h
> @@ -6,6 +6,9 @@
>
>  #include <asm/kvm_emulate.h>
>
> +#define ARM_SMCCC_STD_FEATURES \
> +       GENMASK_ULL(KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP_BIT_MAX, 0)
> +
>  int kvm_hvc_call_handler(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>
>  static inline u32 smccc_get_function(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> @@ -42,9 +45,12 @@ static inline void smccc_set_retval(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>
>  struct kvm_one_reg;
>
> +void kvm_arm_init_hypercalls(struct kvm *kvm);
> +int kvm_arm_num_fw_bmap_regs(void);
>  int kvm_arm_get_fw_num_regs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>  int kvm_arm_copy_fw_reg_indices(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 __user *uindices);
>  int kvm_arm_get_fw_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct kvm_one_reg *reg);
>  int kvm_arm_set_fw_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct kvm_one_reg *reg);
> +bool kvm_hvc_call_supported(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 func_id);
>
>  #endif
> --
> 2.34.1.448.ga2b2bfdf31-goog
>