On 06/10/17 15:26, Julien Thierry wrote:
>
>
> On 06/10/17 15:00, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 06/10/17 14:47, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>>
>>> Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 06/10/17 13:37, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>>> On 06/10/17 12:39, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>>>>> The system state of KVM when using userspace emulation is not complete
>>>>>> until we return into KVM_RUN. To handle mmio related updates we wait
>>>>>> until they have been committed and then schedule our KVM_EXIT_DEBUG.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've introduced a new function kvm_arm_maybe_return_debug() to wrap up
>>>>>> the differences between arm/arm64 which is currently null for arm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 2 ++
>>>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 1 +
>>>>>> arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>> arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c | 9 +++------
>>>>>> virt/kvm/arm/arm.c | 2 +-
>>>>>> virt/kvm/arm/mmio.c | 3 ++-
>>>>>> 6 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>>>>> index 4a879f6ff13b..aec943f6d123 100644
>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>>>>> @@ -285,6 +285,8 @@ static inline void kvm_arm_init_debug(void) {}
>>>>>> static inline void kvm_arm_setup_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
>>>>>> static inline void kvm_arm_clear_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
>>>>>> static inline void kvm_arm_reset_debug_ptr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) {}
>>>>>> +static inline int kvm_arm_maybe_return_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>>>>> + struct kvm_run *run) {}
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int kvm_arm_vcpu_arch_set_attr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>>>>> struct kvm_device_attr *attr);
>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>>>>> index e923b58606e2..fa67d21662f6 100644
>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>>>>> @@ -369,6 +369,7 @@ void kvm_arm_init_debug(void);
>>>>>> void kvm_arm_setup_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>>>>>> void kvm_arm_clear_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>>>>>> void kvm_arm_reset_debug_ptr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>>>>>> +int kvm_arm_maybe_return_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run);
>>>>>> int kvm_arm_vcpu_arch_set_attr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>>>>> struct kvm_device_attr *attr);
>>>>>> int kvm_arm_vcpu_arch_get_attr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c
>>>>>> index dbadfaf850a7..a10a18c55c87 100644
>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c
>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c
>>>>>> @@ -221,3 +221,24 @@ void kvm_arm_clear_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>> + * When KVM has successfully emulated the instruction we might want to
>>>>>> + * return we a KVM_EXIT_DEBUG. We can only do this once the emulation
>>>>>> + * is complete though so for userspace emulations we have to wait
>>>>>> + * until we have re-entered KVM.
>>>>>> + *
>>>>>> + * Return > 0 to return to guest, 0 (and set exit_reason) on proper
>>>>>> + * exit to userspace.
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +int kvm_arm_maybe_return_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + if (vcpu->guest_debug & KVM_GUESTDBG_SINGLESTEP) {
>>>>>> + run->exit_reason = KVM_EXIT_DEBUG;
>>>>>> + run->debug.arch.hsr = ESR_ELx_EC_SOFTSTP_LOW << ESR_ELx_EC_SHIFT;
>>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> + return 1;
>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
>>>>>> index c918d291cb58..7b04f59217bf 100644
>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
>>>>>> @@ -202,13 +202,10 @@ static int handle_trap_exceptions(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
>>>>>> handled = exit_handler(vcpu, run);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - if (handled && (vcpu->guest_debug & KVM_GUESTDBG_SINGLESTEP)) {
>>>>>> - handled = 0;
>>>>>> - run->exit_reason = KVM_EXIT_DEBUG;
>>>>>> - run->debug.arch.hsr = ESR_ELx_EC_SOFTSTP_LOW << ESR_ELx_EC_SHIFT;
>>>>>> - }
>>>>>> + if (handled)
>>>>>> + return kvm_arm_maybe_return_debug(vcpu, run);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - return handled;
>>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /*
>>>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c b/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
>>>>>> index b9f68e4add71..3d28fe2daa26 100644
>>>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
>>>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
>>>>>> @@ -623,7 +623,7 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if (run->exit_reason == KVM_EXIT_MMIO) {
>>>>>> ret = kvm_handle_mmio_return(vcpu, vcpu->run);
>>>>>> - if (ret)
>>>>>> + if (ret < 1)
>>>>>> return ret;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/mmio.c b/virt/kvm/arm/mmio.c
>>>>>> index b6e715fd3c90..e43e3bd6222f 100644
>>>>>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/mmio.c
>>>>>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/mmio.c
>>>>>> @@ -117,7 +117,8 @@ int kvm_handle_mmio_return(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
>>>>>> vcpu_set_reg(vcpu, vcpu->arch.mmio_decode.rt, data);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - return 0;
>>>>>> + /* If debugging in effect we may need to return now */
>>>>>> + return kvm_arm_maybe_return_debug(vcpu, run);
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, that's how you do it. OK. Then the patch splitting is wrong, because
>>>>> everything is broken after patch #1.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, it is not broken at all. I'm just confused by the very
>>>> esoteric flow.
>>>
>>> We could just merge the whole patch in one but I wanted to show the
>>> difference between in-kernel and out-of-kernel emulation.
>>>
>>> I could also move the step handling to the mmio leg in
>>> kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run but you mentioned you use the mmio completion
>>> elsewhere anyway?
>> Yes, look at the end of io_mem_abort(). This is used by the vgic to
>> complete a read emulation in the kernel.
>>
>> And actually, this means that we shouldn't have to mess with
>> handle_exit. Just check for the return value of kvm_handle_mmio_return
>> in the call sites (including the one in io_mem_abort), and exit if we
>> need to single-step...
>>
>
> I think we need to mess with handle_exit (or at least something else
> than kvm_handle_mmio call sites) because the patches don't only fix MMIO
> single stepping, but also other emulated stuff (system register
> accesses, ...).
Ah, true. I was too focussed on the the MMIO problem.
> But with your suggestion maybe we can at least handle both MMIO cases in
> a similar manner. I think we still need the code in handle_exit, or add
> more code to deal case by case with other emulated instructions.
Fair enough.
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
