On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 03:25:47PM +0200, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> On 9/5/19 11:22 AM, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 09:56:44AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > > On Thu, 5 Sep 2019 at 09:52, Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 05 Sep 2019 09:16:54 +0100,
> > > > Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > This is true, but the problem is that barfing out to userspace
> > > > > makes it harder to debug the guest because it means that
> > > > > the VM is immediately destroyed, whereas AIUI if we
> > > > > inject some kind of exception then (assuming you're set up
> > > > > to do kernel-debug via gdbstub) you can actually examine
> > > > > the offending guest code with a debugger because at least
> > > > > your VM is still around to inspect...
> > > >
> > > > To Christoffer's point, I find the benefit a bit dubious. Yes, you get
> > > > an exception, but the instruction that caused it may be completely
> > > > legal (store with post-increment, for example), leading to an even
> > > > more puzzled developer (that exception should never have been
> > > > delivered the first place).
> > >
> > > Right, but the combination of "host kernel prints a message
> > > about an unsupported load/store insn" and "within-guest debug
> > > dump/stack trace/etc" is much more useful than just having
> > > "host kernel prints message" and "QEMU exits"; and it requires
> > > about 3 lines of code change...
> > >
> > > > I'm far more in favour of dumping the state of the access in the run
> > > > structure (much like we do for a MMIO access) and let userspace do
> > > > something about it (such as dumping information on the console or
> > > > breaking). It could even inject an exception *if* the user has asked
> > > > for it.
> > >
> > > ...whereas this requires agreement on a kernel-userspace API,
> > > larger changes in the kernel, somebody to implement the userspace
> > > side of things, and the user to update both the kernel and QEMU.
> > > It's hard for me to see that the benefit here over the 3-line
> > > approach really outweighs the extra effort needed. In practice
> > > saying "we should do this" is saying "we're going to do nothing",
> > > based on the historical record.
> > >
> >
> > How about something like the following (completely untested, liable for
> > ABI discussions etc. etc., but for illustration purposes).
> >
> > I think it raises the question (and likely many other) of whether we can
> > break the existing 'ABI' and change behavior for missing ISV
> > retrospectively for legacy user space when the issue has occurred?
> >
> > Someone might have written code that reacts to the -ENOSYS, so I've
> > taken the conservative approach for this for the time being.
> >
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > index 8a37c8e89777..19a92c49039c 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -76,6 +76,14 @@ struct kvm_arch {
> >
> > /* Mandated version of PSCI */
> > u32 psci_version;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If we encounter a data abort without valid instruction syndrome
> > + * information, report this to user space. User space can (and
> > + * should) opt in to this feature if KVM_CAP_ARM_NISV_TO_USER is
> > + * supported.
> > + */
> > + bool return_nisv_io_abort_to_user;
> > };
> >
> > #define KVM_NR_MEM_OBJS 40
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > index f656169db8c3..019bc560edc1 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > @@ -83,6 +83,14 @@ struct kvm_arch {
> >
> > /* Mandated version of PSCI */
> > u32 psci_version;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If we encounter a data abort without valid instruction syndrome
> > + * information, report this to user space. User space can (and
> > + * should) opt in to this feature if KVM_CAP_ARM_NISV_TO_USER is
> > + * supported.
> > + */
> > + bool return_nisv_io_abort_to_user;
>
> How about 32bit ARM?
>
What about it? Not sure I understand the comment.
> > };
> >
> > #define KVM_NR_MEM_OBJS 40
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> > index 5e3f12d5359e..a4dd004d0db9 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> > @@ -235,6 +235,7 @@ struct kvm_hyperv_exit {
> > #define KVM_EXIT_S390_STSI 25
> > #define KVM_EXIT_IOAPIC_EOI 26
> > #define KVM_EXIT_HYPERV 27
> > +#define KVM_EXIT_ARM_NISV 28
> >
> > /* For KVM_EXIT_INTERNAL_ERROR */
> > /* Emulate instruction failed. */
> > @@ -996,6 +997,7 @@ struct kvm_ppc_resize_hpt {
> > #define KVM_CAP_ARM_PTRAUTH_ADDRESS 171
> > #define KVM_CAP_ARM_PTRAUTH_GENERIC 172
> > #define KVM_CAP_PMU_EVENT_FILTER 173
> > +#define KVM_CAP_ARM_NISV_TO_USER 174
> >
> > #ifdef KVM_CAP_IRQ_ROUTING
> >
> > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c b/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> > index 35a069815baf..2ce94bd9d4a9 100644
> > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
> > @@ -98,6 +98,26 @@ int kvm_arch_check_processor_compat(void)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +int kvm_vm_ioctl_enable_cap(struct kvm *kvm,
> > + struct kvm_enable_cap *cap)
>
> This overrides the weak implementation in virt/kvm/kvm_main.c. OK.
>
Yes.
> > +{
> > + int r;
> > +
> > + if (cap->flags)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + switch (cap->cap) {
> > + case KVM_CAP_ARM_NISV_TO_USER:
> > + r = 0;
> > + kvm->arch.return_nisv_io_abort_to_user = true;
> > + break;
> > + default:
> > + r = -EINVAL;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return r;
> > +}
> >
> > /**
> > * kvm_arch_init_vm - initializes a VM data structure
> > @@ -196,6 +216,7 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension(struct kvm *kvm, long ext)
> > case KVM_CAP_MP_STATE:
> > case KVM_CAP_IMMEDIATE_EXIT:
> > case KVM_CAP_VCPU_EVENTS:
> > + case KVM_CAP_ARM_NISV_TO_USER:
> > r = 1;
> > break;
> > case KVM_CAP_ARM_SET_DEVICE_ADDR:
> > @@ -673,6 +694,8 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
> > ret = kvm_handle_mmio_return(vcpu, vcpu->run);
> > if (ret)
> > return ret;
> > + } else if (run->exit_reason == KVM_EXIT_ARM_NISV) {
> > + kvm_inject_undefined(vcpu);
>
> So QEMU can try to enable the feature via IOCTL. And here you would
> raise the 'undefined instruction' exception which QEMU will have to
> handle in the loop calling KVM either by trying to make sense of the
> instruction or by passing it on to the guest.
>
> Conceptually this looks good to me and meets the requirements of my
> application.
>
> Thanks a lot for your suggestion.
>
I will change the undef to an external abort as I think that's more in
line with the architecture, and document this, test and send out as a
proper patch.
Thanks,
Christoffer
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
