On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 02:50:08PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 21/06/2019 14:24, Julien Thierry wrote: > > > > > > On 21/06/2019 10:37, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> From: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> We were not allowing userspace to set a more privileged mode for the VCPU > >> than EL1, but we should allow this when nested virtualization is enabled > >> for the VCPU. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c | 6 ++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c > >> index 3ae2f82fca46..4c35b5d51e21 100644 > >> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c > >> @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ > >> #include <asm/kvm_emulate.h> > >> #include <asm/kvm_coproc.h> > >> #include <asm/kvm_host.h> > >> +#include <asm/kvm_nested.h> > >> #include <asm/sigcontext.h> > >> > >> #include "trace.h" > >> @@ -194,6 +195,11 @@ static int set_core_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct kvm_one_reg *reg) > >> if (vcpu_el1_is_32bit(vcpu)) > >> return -EINVAL; > >> break; > >> + case PSR_MODE_EL2h: > >> + case PSR_MODE_EL2t: > >> + if (vcpu_el1_is_32bit(vcpu) || !nested_virt_in_use(vcpu)) > > > > This condition reads a bit weirdly. Why do we care about anything else > > than !nested_virt_in_use() ? > > > > If nested virt is not in use then obviously we return the error. > > > > If nested virt is in use then why do we care about EL1? Or should this > > test read as "highest_el_is_32bit" ? > > There are multiple things at play here: > > - MODE_EL2x is not a valid 32bit mode > - The architecture forbids nested virt with 32bit EL2 > > The code above is a simplification of these two conditions. But > certainly we can do a bit better, as kvm_reset_cpu() doesn't really > check that we don't create a vcpu with both 32bit+NV. These two bits > should really be exclusive. This code is safe for now because KVM_VCPU_MAX_FEATURES <= KVM_ARM_VCPU_NESTED_VIRT, right, i.e., nested_virt_in_use() cannot be true? This makes me a little uneasy, but I think that's paranoia talking: we want bisectably, but no sane person should ship with just half of this series. So I guess this is fine. We could stick something like if (WARN_ON(...)) return false; in nested_virt_in_use() and then remove it in the final patch, but it's probably overkill. Cheers ---Dave
