On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 09:35:13PM -0700, Reiji Watanabe wrote:
> Introduce arm64_check_features(), which does a basic validity checking
> of an ID register value against the register's limit value that KVM
> can support.
> This function will be used by the following patches to check if an ID
> register value that userspace tries to set can be supported by KVM on
> the host.
>
> Signed-off-by: Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 1 +
> arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> index ef6be92b1921..eda7ddbed8cf 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/cpufeature.h
> @@ -631,6 +631,7 @@ void check_local_cpu_capabilities(void);
>
> u64 read_sanitised_ftr_reg(u32 id);
> u64 __read_sysreg_by_encoding(u32 sys_id);
> +int arm64_check_features(u32 sys_reg, u64 val, u64 limit);
>
> static inline bool cpu_supports_mixed_endian_el0(void)
> {
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> index 6ec7036ef7e1..d146ef759435 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> @@ -3114,3 +3114,29 @@ ssize_t cpu_show_meltdown(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> return sprintf(buf, "Vulnerable\n");
> }
> }
> +
> +/*
> + * Check if all features that are indicated in the given ID register value
> + * ('val') are also indicated in the 'limit'.
Maybe use @<param> syntax to reference the parameters, even though this
file doesn't seem to adopt that anywhere else...
> + */
> +int arm64_check_features(u32 sys_reg, u64 val, u64 limit)
> +{
> + struct arm64_ftr_reg *reg = get_arm64_ftr_reg(sys_reg);
> + const struct arm64_ftr_bits *ftrp;
> + u64 exposed_mask = 0;
> +
> + if (!reg)
> + return -ENOENT;
> +
> + for (ftrp = reg->ftr_bits; ftrp->width; ftrp++) {
> + if (arm64_ftr_value(ftrp, val) > arm64_ftr_value(ftrp, limit))
Hmm. Are we sure that '>' is the correct operator for all comparisons? It
seems like we need a arm64_ftr_compare() function that takes
arm64_ftr_bits.type and .sign into account.
> + return -E2BIG;
> +
> + exposed_mask |= arm64_ftr_mask(ftrp);
> + }
> +
> + if (val & ~exposed_mask)
> + return -E2BIG;
I'm not sure we want this. I think it implies that any RAO bits need to be
cleared before calling this function, which could be inconvenient.
Thanks,
drew
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> --
> 2.33.0.882.g93a45727a2-goog
>
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
