Hi Marc,
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 2:11 PM Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 10 Oct 2021 15:56:36 +0100,
> Fuad Tabba <tabba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Protected KVM does not support protected AArch32 guests. However,
> > it is possible for the guest to force run AArch32, potentially
> > causing problems. Add an extra check so that if the hypervisor
> > catches the guest doing that, it can prevent the guest from
> > running again by resetting vcpu->arch.target and returning
> > ARM_EXCEPTION_IL.
> >
> > If this were to happen, The VMM can try and fix it by re-
> > initializing the vcpu with KVM_ARM_VCPU_INIT, however, this is
> > likely not possible for protected VMs.
> >
> > Adapted from commit 22f553842b14 ("KVM: arm64: Handle Asymmetric
> > AArch32 systems")
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Fuad Tabba <tabba@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/switch.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/switch.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/switch.c
> > index 2c72c31e516e..f25b6353a598 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/switch.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/switch.c
> > @@ -232,6 +232,37 @@ static const exit_handler_fn *kvm_get_exit_handler_array(struct kvm *kvm)
> > return hyp_exit_handlers;
> > }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Some guests (e.g., protected VMs) are not be allowed to run in AArch32.
> > + * The ARMv8 architecture does not give the hypervisor a mechanism to prevent a
> > + * guest from dropping to AArch32 EL0 if implemented by the CPU. If the
> > + * hypervisor spots a guest in such a state ensure it is handled, and don't
> > + * trust the host to spot or fix it. The check below is based on the one in
> > + * kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run().
> > + *
> > + * Returns false if the guest ran in AArch32 when it shouldn't have, and
> > + * thus should exit to the host, or true if a the guest run loop can continue.
> > + */
> > +static bool handle_aarch32_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 *exit_code)
> > +{
> > + struct kvm *kvm = kern_hyp_va(vcpu->kvm);
> > +
> > + if (kvm_vm_is_protected(kvm) && vcpu_mode_is_32bit(vcpu)) {
> > + /*
> > + * As we have caught the guest red-handed, decide that it isn't
> > + * fit for purpose anymore by making the vcpu invalid. The VMM
> > + * can try and fix it by re-initializing the vcpu with
> > + * KVM_ARM_VCPU_INIT, however, this is likely not possible for
> > + * protected VMs.
> > + */
> > + vcpu->arch.target = -1;
> > + *exit_code = ARM_EXCEPTION_IL;
>
> Aren't we losing a potential SError here, which the original commit
> doesn't need to handle? I'd expect something like:
>
> *exit_code &= BIT(ARM_EXIT_WITH_SERROR_BIT);
> *exit_code |= ARM_EXCEPTION_IL;
Yes, you're right. That would ensure the SError is preserved.
Thanks,
/fuad
> > + return false;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return true;
> > +}
> > +
> > /* Switch to the guest for legacy non-VHE systems */
> > int __kvm_vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > {
> > @@ -294,6 +325,9 @@ int __kvm_vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > /* Jump in the fire! */
> > exit_code = __guest_enter(vcpu);
> >
> > + if (unlikely(!handle_aarch32_guest(vcpu, &exit_code)))
> > + break;
> > +
> > /* And we're baaack! */
> > } while (fixup_guest_exit(vcpu, &exit_code));
> >
>
> Thanks,
>
> M.
>
> --
> Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
