On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 12:53:58PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 24/06/2019 12:28, Dave Martin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 10:37:48AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >> From: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Introduce the feature bit and a primitive that checks if the feature is
> >> set behind a static key check based on the cpus_have_const_cap check.
> >>
> >> Checking nested_virt_in_use() on systems without nested virt enabled
> >> should have neglgible overhead.
> >>
> >> We don't yet allow userspace to actually set this feature.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_nested.h | 9 +++++++++
> >> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_nested.h | 13 +++++++++++++
> >> arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 1 +
> >> 3 files changed, 23 insertions(+)
> >> create mode 100644 arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_nested.h
> >> create mode 100644 arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_nested.h
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_nested.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_nested.h
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 000000000000..124ff6445f8f
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/kvm_nested.h
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
> >> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> >> +#ifndef __ARM_KVM_NESTED_H
> >> +#define __ARM_KVM_NESTED_H
> >> +
> >> +#include <linux/kvm_host.h>
> >> +
> >> +static inline bool nested_virt_in_use(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) { return false; }
> >> +
> >> +#endif /* __ARM_KVM_NESTED_H */
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_nested.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_nested.h
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 000000000000..8a3d121a0b42
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_nested.h
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
> >> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> >> +#ifndef __ARM64_KVM_NESTED_H
> >> +#define __ARM64_KVM_NESTED_H
> >> +
> >> +#include <linux/kvm_host.h>
> >> +
> >> +static inline bool nested_virt_in_use(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >> +{
> >> + return cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_NESTED_VIRT) &&
> >> + test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_NESTED_VIRT, vcpu->arch.features);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +#endif /* __ARM64_KVM_NESTED_H */
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> >> index d819a3e8b552..563e2a8bae93 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> >> @@ -106,6 +106,7 @@ struct kvm_regs {
> >> #define KVM_ARM_VCPU_SVE 4 /* enable SVE for this CPU */
> >> #define KVM_ARM_VCPU_PTRAUTH_ADDRESS 5 /* VCPU uses address authentication */
> >> #define KVM_ARM_VCPU_PTRAUTH_GENERIC 6 /* VCPU uses generic authentication */
> >> +#define KVM_ARM_VCPU_NESTED_VIRT 7 /* Support nested virtualization */
> >
> > This seems weirdly named:
> >
> > Isn't the feature we're exposing here really EL2? In that case, the
> > feature the guest gets with this flag enabled is plain virtualisation,
> > possibly with the option to nest further.
> >
> > Does the guest also get nested virt (i.e., recursively nested virt from
> > the host's PoV) as a side effect, or would require an explicit extra
> > flag?
>
> So far, there is no extra flag to describe further nesting, and it
> directly comes from EL2 being emulated. I don't mind renaming this to
> KVM_ARM_VCPU_HAS_EL2, or something similar... Whether we want userspace
> to control the exposure of the nesting capability (i.e. EL2 with
> ARMv8.3-NV) is another question.
Agreed.
KVM_ARM_VCPU_HAS_EL2 seems a reasonable name to me.
If we have have an internal flag in vcpu_arch.flags we could call that
something different (i.e., keep the NESTED_VIRT naming) if it's natural
to do so.
Cheers
---Dave
