On 2020-08-21 15:05, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 01:45:40PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On 2020-08-21 13:26, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 01:12:10PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 01:07:00PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 01:31:27PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > @@ -979,6 +980,14 @@
> > > > write_sysreg(__scs_new, sysreg); \
> > > > } while (0)
> > > >
> > > > +#define read_sysreg_par() ({ \
> > > > + u64 par; \
> > > > + asm(ALTERNATIVE("nop", "dmb sy", ARM64_WORKAROUND_1508412)); \
> > > > + par = read_sysreg(par_el1); \
> > > > + asm(ALTERNATIVE("nop", "dmb sy", ARM64_WORKAROUND_1508412)); \
> > > > + par; \
> > > > +})
> > >
> > > I was about to queue this up but one more point to clarify: can we get
> > > an interrupt at either side of the PAR_EL1 read and the handler do a
> > > device read, triggering the erratum? Do we need a DMB at exception
> > > entry/return?
> >
> > Disabling irqs around the PAR access would be simpler, I think
> > (assuming
> > this is needed).
>
> This wouldn't work if it interrupts a guest.
If we take an interrupt either side of the PAR_EL1 read and that we
fully exit, the saving of PAR_EL1 on the way out solves the problem.
If we don't fully exit, but instead reenter the guest immediately
(fixup_guest_exit() returns true), we'd need a DMB at that point,
at least because of the GICv2 proxying code which performs device
accesses on the guest's behalf.
If you are ok with the diff below, I can fold it in:
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/hyp/switch.h
b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/hyp/switch.h
index ca88ea416176..8770cf7ccd42 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/hyp/switch.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/hyp/switch.h
@@ -420,7 +420,7 @@ static inline bool fixup_guest_exit(struct
kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 *exit_code)
if (cpus_have_final_cap(ARM64_WORKAROUND_CAVIUM_TX2_219_TVM) &&
kvm_vcpu_trap_get_class(vcpu) == ESR_ELx_EC_SYS64 &&
handle_tx2_tvm(vcpu))
- return true;
+ goto guest;
/*
* We trap the first access to the FP/SIMD to save the host context
@@ -430,13 +430,13 @@ static inline bool fixup_guest_exit(struct
kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 *exit_code)
* Similarly for trapped SVE accesses.
*/
if (__hyp_handle_fpsimd(vcpu))
- return true;
+ goto guest;
if (__hyp_handle_ptrauth(vcpu))
- return true;
+ goto guest;
if (!__populate_fault_info(vcpu))
- return true;
+ goto guest;
if (static_branch_unlikely(&vgic_v2_cpuif_trap)) {
bool valid;
@@ -451,7 +451,7 @@ static inline bool fixup_guest_exit(struct
kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 *exit_code)
int ret = __vgic_v2_perform_cpuif_access(vcpu);
if (ret == 1)
- return true;
+ goto guest;
/* Promote an illegal access to an SError.*/
if (ret == -1)
@@ -467,12 +467,17 @@ static inline bool fixup_guest_exit(struct
kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 *exit_code)
int ret = __vgic_v3_perform_cpuif_access(vcpu);
if (ret == 1)
- return true;
+ goto guest;
}
exit:
/* Return to the host kernel and handle the exit */
return false;
+
+guest:
+ /* Re-enter the guest */
+ asm(ALTERNATIVE("nop", "dmb sy", ARM64_WORKAROUND_1508412));
+ return true;
}
static inline bool __needs_ssbd_off(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
Looks good to me!
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
