Re: [PATCH v5 04/10] KVM: arm64: Add vendor hypervisor firmware register

From: Raghavendra Rao Ananta
Date: Thu Apr 14 2022 - 13:13:03 EST

Next message: Sean Christopherson: "Re: [RFC PATCH v5 092/104] KVM: TDX: Handle TDX PV HLT hypercall"
Previous message: Markuss Broks: "[PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: regulator: Add bindings for Silicon Mitus SM5703 regulators"
In reply to: Gavin Shan: "Re: [PATCH v5 04/10] KVM: arm64: Add vendor hypervisor firmware register"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 6:04 PM Gavin Shan <gshan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Raghavendra,
>
> On 4/14/22 12:59 AM, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 8:59 PM Gavin Shan <gshan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On 4/7/22 9:15 AM, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> >>> Introduce the firmware register to hold the vendor specific
> >>> hypervisor service calls (owner value 6) as a bitmap. The
> >>> bitmap represents the features that'll be enabled for the
> >>> guest, as configured by the user-space. Currently, this
> >>> includes support for KVM-vendor features, and Precision Time
> >>> Protocol (PTP), represented by bit-0 and bit-1 respectively.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 2 ++
> >>> arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 4 ++++
> >>> arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++----
> >>> include/kvm/arm_hypercalls.h | 4 ++++
> >>> 4 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >>> index 20165242ebd9..b79161bad69a 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >>> @@ -106,10 +106,12 @@ struct kvm_arch_memory_slot {
> >>> *
> >>> * @std_bmap: Bitmap of standard secure service calls
> >>> * @std_hyp_bmap: Bitmap of standard hypervisor service calls
> >>> + * @vendor_hyp_bmap: Bitmap of vendor specific hypervisor service calls
> >>> */
> >>> struct kvm_smccc_features {
> >>> u64 std_bmap;
> >>> u64 std_hyp_bmap;
> >>> + u64 vendor_hyp_bmap;
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> struct kvm_arch {
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> >>> index 67353bf4e69d..9a5ac0ed4113 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> >>> @@ -344,6 +344,10 @@ struct kvm_arm_copy_mte_tags {
> >>> #define KVM_REG_ARM_STD_HYP_BMAP KVM_REG_ARM_FW_FEAT_BMAP_REG(1)
> >>> #define KVM_REG_ARM_STD_HYP_BIT_PV_TIME BIT(0)
> >>>
> >>> +#define KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BMAP KVM_REG_ARM_FW_FEAT_BMAP_REG(2)
> >>> +#define KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BIT_FUNC_FEAT BIT(0)
> >>> +#define KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BIT_PTP BIT(1)
> >>> +
> >>> /* Device Control API: ARM VGIC */
> >>> #define KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_ADDR 0
> >>> #define KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_DIST_REGS 1
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c
> >>> index 64ae6c7e7145..80836c341fd3 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c
> >>> @@ -66,8 +66,6 @@ static const u32 hvc_func_default_allowed_list[] = {
> >>> ARM_SMCCC_VERSION_FUNC_ID,
> >>> ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_FEATURES_FUNC_ID,
> >>> ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_CALL_UID_FUNC_ID,
> >>> - ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_FEATURES_FUNC_ID,
> >>> - ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_PTP_FUNC_ID,
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> static bool kvm_hvc_call_default_allowed(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 func_id)
> >>> @@ -102,6 +100,12 @@ static bool kvm_hvc_call_allowed(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 func_id)
> >>> case ARM_SMCCC_HV_PV_TIME_ST:
> >>> return kvm_arm_fw_reg_feat_enabled(smccc_feat->std_hyp_bmap,
> >>> KVM_REG_ARM_STD_HYP_BIT_PV_TIME);
> >>> + case ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_FEATURES_FUNC_ID:
> >>> + return kvm_arm_fw_reg_feat_enabled(smccc_feat->vendor_hyp_bmap,
> >>> + KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BIT_FUNC_FEAT);
> >>> + case ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_PTP_FUNC_ID:
> >>> + return kvm_arm_fw_reg_feat_enabled(smccc_feat->vendor_hyp_bmap,
> >>> + KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BIT_PTP);
> >>> default:
> >>> return kvm_hvc_call_default_allowed(vcpu, func_id);
> >>> }
> >>
> >> I guess we may return SMCCC_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED for ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_CALL_UID_FUNC_ID
> >> if KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BIT_FUNC_FEAT isn't set? Otherwise, we need explain it
> >> in the commit log.
> >>
> > ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_CALL_UID_FUNC_ID is a part of the hvc
> > allowed-list (hvc_func_default_allowed_list[]), which means it's not
> > associated with any feature bit and is always enabled. If the guest
> > were to issue ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_CALL_UID_FUNC_ID, we'd end up in
> > the 'default' case and the kvm_hvc_call_default_allowed() would return
> > 'true'. This is documented in patch 2/10.
> >
>
> I think I might not make myself clear and sorry for that. The point is
> the following hvc calls should be belonging to 'Vendor Specific Hypervisor
> Service', or I'm wrong. If I'm correct, VENDOR_HYP_CALL_UID_FUNC_ID
> should be disallowed if bit#0 isn't set in @vendor_hyp_bmap.
>
> ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_CALL_UID_FUNC_ID
> ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_FEATURES_FUNC_ID
> ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_PTP_FUNC_ID
>
> ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_CALL_UID_FUNC_ID was introduced by commit 6e085e0ac9cf
> ("arm/arm64: Probe for the presence of KVM hypervisor"). According to the
> commit log, the identifier and supported (vendor specific) feature list
> is returned by this call and ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_FEATURES_FUNC_ID.
> So the users depend on both calls to probe the supported features or
> services. So it seems incorrect to allow ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_CALL_UID_FUNC_ID
> even the 'Vendor Specific Hypervisor Service' is disabled and bit#0
> is cleared in @vendor_hyp_bmap by users.
>
Hm, it was a grey area for me since the FEATURES_FUNC_ID didn't
broadcast the presence of UID_FUNC_ID. But what you said makes sense.
UID_FUNC_ID should tag along with FEATURES_FUNC_ID. I can merge both
of them under bit-0.
Thanks for sharing the background.

Regards,
Raghavendra

> >> KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BIT_{FUNC_FEAT, PTP} aren't parallel to each other.
> >> I think PTP can't be on if KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BIT_FUNC_FEAT is off.
> >>
> > Actually we went through this scenario [1]. Of course, we can build
> > some logic around it to make sure that the userspace does the right
> > thing, but at this point the consensus is that, unless it's an issue
> > for KVM, it's treated as a userspace bug.
> >
>
> Thanks for the pointer. I chime in late and I didn't check the reviewing
> history on this series. Hopefully I didn't bring too much confusing comments
> to you.
>
> I think it's fine by treating it as a userspace bug, but it would be nice
> to add comments somewhere if you agree.
>
> >>> @@ -194,8 +198,7 @@ int kvm_hvc_call_handler(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >>> val[3] = ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_UID_KVM_REG_3;
> >>> break;
> >>> case ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_FEATURES_FUNC_ID:
> >>> - val[0] = BIT(ARM_SMCCC_KVM_FUNC_FEATURES);
> >>> - val[0] |= BIT(ARM_SMCCC_KVM_FUNC_PTP);
> >>> + val[0] = smccc_feat->vendor_hyp_bmap;
> >>> break;
> >>> case ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_PTP_FUNC_ID:
> >>> kvm_ptp_get_time(vcpu, val);
> >>> @@ -222,6 +225,7 @@ static const u64 kvm_arm_fw_reg_ids[] = {
> >>> KVM_REG_ARM_SMCCC_ARCH_WORKAROUND_3,
> >>> KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP,
> >>> KVM_REG_ARM_STD_HYP_BMAP,
> >>> + KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BMAP,
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> void kvm_arm_init_hypercalls(struct kvm *kvm)
> >>> @@ -230,6 +234,7 @@ void kvm_arm_init_hypercalls(struct kvm *kvm)
> >>>
> >>> smccc_feat->std_bmap = KVM_ARM_SMCCC_STD_FEATURES;
> >>> smccc_feat->std_hyp_bmap = KVM_ARM_SMCCC_STD_HYP_FEATURES;
> >>> + smccc_feat->vendor_hyp_bmap = KVM_ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_FEATURES;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> int kvm_arm_get_fw_num_regs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >>> @@ -322,6 +327,9 @@ int kvm_arm_get_fw_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct kvm_one_reg *reg)
> >>> case KVM_REG_ARM_STD_HYP_BMAP:
> >>> val = READ_ONCE(smccc_feat->std_hyp_bmap);
> >>> break;
> >>> + case KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BMAP:
> >>> + val = READ_ONCE(smccc_feat->vendor_hyp_bmap);
> >>> + break;
> >>> default:
> >>> return -ENOENT;
> >>> }
> >>> @@ -348,6 +356,10 @@ static int kvm_arm_set_fw_reg_bmap(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 reg_id, u64 val)
> >>> fw_reg_bmap = &smccc_feat->std_hyp_bmap;
> >>> fw_reg_features = KVM_ARM_SMCCC_STD_HYP_FEATURES;
> >>> break;
> >>> + case KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BMAP:
> >>> + fw_reg_bmap = &smccc_feat->vendor_hyp_bmap;
> >>> + fw_reg_features = KVM_ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_FEATURES;
> >>> + break;
> >>> default:
> >>> return -ENOENT;
> >>> }
> >>
> >> If KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BIT_{FUNC_FEAT, PTP} aren't parallel to each other,
> >> special code is needed to gurantee PTP is cleared if VENDOR_HYP is disabled.
> >>
> > Please see the above comment :)
> >
>
> Thanks for the pointer and explanation :)
>
> >>> @@ -453,6 +465,7 @@ int kvm_arm_set_fw_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct kvm_one_reg *reg)
> >>> return 0;
> >>> case KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP:
> >>> case KVM_REG_ARM_STD_HYP_BMAP:
> >>> + case KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BMAP:
> >>> return kvm_arm_set_fw_reg_bmap(vcpu, reg->id, val);
> >>> default:
> >>> return -ENOENT;
> >>> diff --git a/include/kvm/arm_hypercalls.h b/include/kvm/arm_hypercalls.h
> >>> index b0915d8c5b81..eaf4f6b318a8 100644
> >>> --- a/include/kvm/arm_hypercalls.h
> >>> +++ b/include/kvm/arm_hypercalls.h
> >>> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@
> >>> /* Last valid bits of the bitmapped firmware registers */
> >>> #define KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP_BIT_MAX 0
> >>> #define KVM_REG_ARM_STD_HYP_BMAP_BIT_MAX 0
> >>> +#define KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BMAP_BIT_MAX 1
> >>>
> >>> #define KVM_ARM_SMCCC_STD_FEATURES \
> >>> GENMASK_ULL(KVM_REG_ARM_STD_BMAP_BIT_MAX, 0)
> >>> @@ -16,6 +17,9 @@
> >>> #define KVM_ARM_SMCCC_STD_HYP_FEATURES \
> >>> GENMASK_ULL(KVM_REG_ARM_STD_HYP_BMAP_BIT_MAX, 0)
> >>>
> >>> +#define KVM_ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_FEATURES \
> >>> + GENMASK_ULL(KVM_REG_ARM_VENDOR_HYP_BMAP_BIT_MAX, 0)
> >>> +
> >>> int kvm_hvc_call_handler(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> >>>
> >>> static inline u32 smccc_get_function(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > Thanks for the review.
> >
>
> No worries and sorry for the late chime-in :)
>
> >
> > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YjA1AzZPlPV20kMj@xxxxxxxxxx/
> >
>
> Thanks,
> Gavin
>

Next message: Sean Christopherson: "Re: [RFC PATCH v5 092/104] KVM: TDX: Handle TDX PV HLT hypercall"
Previous message: Markuss Broks: "[PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: regulator: Add bindings for Silicon Mitus SM5703 regulators"
In reply to: Gavin Shan: "Re: [PATCH v5 04/10] KVM: arm64: Add vendor hypervisor firmware register"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]