Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Hide unsupported MPAM from the guest

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 2020-09-26 10:48, Andrew Jones wrote:
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 05:01:02PM +0100, James Morse wrote:
Commit 011e5f5bf529 ("arm64/cpufeature: Add remaining feature bits in
ID_AA64PFR0 register") proactively added published features to the
cpufeature id registers.

If the platform supports these features, they are visible in the
sanitised ID registers that are exposed to KVM guests. This is a
problem as KVM doesn't support MPAM.

The hardware reset behaviour of MPAM is to be disabled at EL3. It
is unlikely anyone would ship a platform without firmware support,
the necessary initialisation has been upstream in the TF-A project
for over a year.

Firmware configures the EL2 registers to trap EL1 and EL0 access
to EL2. As KVM doesn't support MPAM, it doesn't change these
registers. Booting an MPAM capable kernel as a guest of mainline
causes KVM to take an unknown trap from an EL1 guest, and inject
an undef in response:
host:
| kvm [126]: Unsupported guest sys_reg access at: ffff800010093f24 [00000005]
|  { Op0( 3), Op1( 0), CRn(10), CRm( 5), Op2( 0), func_read },

guest:
| ------------[ cut here ]------------
| kernel BUG at arch/arm64/kernel/traps.c:409!
| Internal error: Oops - BUG: 0 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
| Modules linked in:
| CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.6.0-rc1-00152-g570fa7e2d2ad #11605
| Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
| pstate: 00000005 (nzcv daif -PAN -UAO)
| pc : do_undefinstr+0x2ec/0x310
| lr : do_undefinstr+0x2f8/0x310
...

This is a tad unfair on the guest as KVM said it supported the
feature. Mask out the MPAM feature.

Fixes: 011e5f5bf529 ("arm64/cpufeature: Add remaining feature bits in
ID_AA64PFR0 register")
Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: James Morse <james.morse@xxxxxxx>

---
I'll be back at rc1 with the minimal KVM support to ensure the traps
are enabled and handled islently.
---
 arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
index 077293b5115f..f736791f37ca 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
@@ -1131,6 +1131,7 @@ static u64 read_id_reg(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
 		if (!vcpu_has_sve(vcpu))
 			val &= ~(0xfUL << ID_AA64PFR0_SVE_SHIFT);
 		val &= ~(0xfUL << ID_AA64PFR0_AMU_SHIFT);
+		val &= ~(0xfUL << ID_AA64PFR0_MPAM_SHIFT);
 	} else if (id == SYS_ID_AA64ISAR1_EL1 && !vcpu_has_ptrauth(vcpu)) {
 		val &= ~((0xfUL << ID_AA64ISAR1_APA_SHIFT) |
 			 (0xfUL << ID_AA64ISAR1_API_SHIFT) |
--
2.28.0


Hi James,

Thanks for this fix

Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@xxxxxxxxxx>

but, going forward, I think we need a more robust solution to CPU feature additions in order to avoid these types of issues. Our current approach is
to patch KVM to hide features from the guest as we introduce support to
the [guest] kernel. IOW, we have to remember to maintain a guest CPU
feature reject-list. And, since that's error-prone, we should do regular audits of the reject-list to ensure it's complete. It would be better to have an accept-list (all features masked by default) and then only expose
features as we add the KVM support.

I have started doing that for the NV series [1], as our virtual CPU is much more limited than the HW it runs on. It shouldn't be hard to turn this into
something more generic.

However, it doesn't say anything about the traps that can occur as the
architecture grows new extensions. The current position is to always
inject an UNDEF (exactly what James is doing here), but it isn't obvious
to me that it is always the right thing to do. We should probably drop the
dmesg screaming and convert it to a trace...

Maybe we should introduce KVM masks
for each ID register? Also, regarding the current implementation, do you know if a recent audit has been conducted to ensure (now with MPAM) that
the current feature hiding is complete?

I doubt it is. The number of additions up to ARMv8.6 is huge, and someone
would need to carefully comb it and test it on FVP with all the possible
architectural knobs turned in various ways...

Thanks,

        M.

[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/maz/arm-platforms.git/commit/?h=kvm-arm64/nv-5.10-WIP&id=1669f02ebf8e0aa932549d9487ed6b4258351943
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm



[Index of Archives]     [Linux KVM]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux