On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 05:42:59PM -0700, Reiji Watanabe wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 6:09 AM Andrew Jones <drjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 09:35:12PM -0700, Reiji Watanabe wrote:
> > > Extend sys_regs[] of kvm_cpu_context for ID registers and save ID
> > > registers' sanitized value in the array for the vCPU at the first
> > > vCPU reset. Use the saved ones when ID registers are read by
> > > userspace (via KVM_GET_ONE_REG) or the guest.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 10 ++++++++++
> > > arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++--------
> > > 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > index 9b5e7a3b6011..0cd351099adf 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > @@ -145,6 +145,14 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_fault_info {
> > > u64 disr_el1; /* Deferred [SError] Status Register */
> > > };
> > >
> > > +/*
> > > + * (Op0, Op1, CRn, CRm, Op2) of ID registers is (3, 0, 0, crm, op2),
> > > + * where 0<=crm<8, 0<=op2<8.
> >
> > crm is 4 bits, so this should be 0 <= crm < 16 and...
> >
> > > + */
> > > +#define KVM_ARM_ID_REG_MAX_NUM 64
> >
> > ...this should be 128. Or am I missing something?
>
> Registers with (3, 0, 0, 0<=crm<8, op2) are defined/allocated including
> reserved (RAZ) ones (please see Table D12-2 in ARM DDI 0487G.b),
> and the code supports those only for now.
>
> I understand that registers with crm >= 8 could be defined in the future
> (I'm not so sure if they will be really ID registers though),
> but then we can include them later as needed.
Oh, I see. Thanks. Looking at the table I see CRm=0,op2={1,2,3,4,7} are
also missing, but it certainly doesn't matter that we allocate a few
unused entries, especially since we also allocate entries for all the
RAZ ones.
>
> > > +#define IDREG_IDX(id) ((sys_reg_CRm(id) << 3) | sys_reg_Op2(id))
> > > +#define IDREG_SYS_IDX(id) (ID_REG_BASE + IDREG_IDX(id))
> > > +
> > > enum vcpu_sysreg {
> > > __INVALID_SYSREG__, /* 0 is reserved as an invalid value */
> > > MPIDR_EL1, /* MultiProcessor Affinity Register */
> > > @@ -209,6 +217,8 @@ enum vcpu_sysreg {
> > > CNTP_CVAL_EL0,
> > > CNTP_CTL_EL0,
> > >
> > > + ID_REG_BASE,
> > > + ID_REG_END = ID_REG_BASE + KVM_ARM_ID_REG_MAX_NUM - 1,
> > > /* Memory Tagging Extension registers */
> > > RGSR_EL1, /* Random Allocation Tag Seed Register */
> > > GCR_EL1, /* Tag Control Register */
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> > > index 1d46e185f31e..72ca518e7944 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> > > @@ -273,7 +273,7 @@ static bool trap_loregion(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > struct sys_reg_params *p,
> > > const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
> > > {
> > > - u64 val = read_sanitised_ftr_reg(SYS_ID_AA64MMFR1_EL1);
> > > + u64 val = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, IDREG_SYS_IDX(SYS_ID_AA64MMFR1_EL1));
> > > u32 sr = reg_to_encoding(r);
> > >
> > > if (!(val & (0xfUL << ID_AA64MMFR1_LOR_SHIFT))) {
> > > @@ -1059,12 +1059,11 @@ static bool access_arch_timer(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > return true;
> > > }
> > >
> > > -/* Read a sanitised cpufeature ID register by sys_reg_desc */
> > > static u64 read_id_reg(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > struct sys_reg_desc const *r, bool raz)
> > > {
> > > u32 id = reg_to_encoding(r);
> > > - u64 val = raz ? 0 : read_sanitised_ftr_reg(id);
> > > + u64 val = raz ? 0 : __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, IDREG_SYS_IDX(id));
> > >
> > > switch (id) {
> > > case SYS_ID_AA64PFR0_EL1:
> > > @@ -1174,6 +1173,16 @@ static unsigned int sve_visibility(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > > return REG_HIDDEN;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static void reset_id_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct sys_reg_desc *rd)
> >
> > Since not all ID registers will use this, then maybe name it
> > reset_sanitised_id_reg?
>
> Thank you for the suggestion.
>
> I named it 'reset_id_reg' according to the naming conventions of
> set_id_reg, get_id_reg, and access_id_reg which are used for the same
> set of ID registers (ID_SANITISED ones) as reset_id_reg.
> I would think it's better to use consistent names for all of them.
> So, I am a bit reluctant to change only the name of reset_id_reg.
>
> What do you think about the names of those other three functions ?
I think I like the shorter names, so please disregard my suggestion.
Thanks,
drew
