Hi Eric,
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 1:07 PM Eric Auger <eauger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Reiji,
>
> On 11/17/21 7:43 AM, Reiji Watanabe wrote:
> > This patch lays the groundwork to make ID registers writable.
> >
> > Introduce struct id_reg_info for an ID register to manage the
> > register specific control of its value for the guest, and provide set
> > of functions commonly used for ID registers to make them writable.
> >
> > The id_reg_info is used to do register specific initialization,
> > validation of the ID register and etc. Not all ID registers must
> > have the id_reg_info. ID registers that don't have the id_reg_info
> > are handled in a common way that is applied to all ID registers.
> >
> > At present, changing an ID register from userspace is allowed only
> > if the ID register has the id_reg_info, but that will be changed
> > by the following patches.
> >
> > No ID register has the structure yet and the following patches
> > will add the id_reg_info for some ID registers.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h | 1 +
> > arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c | 226 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > 2 files changed, 218 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
> > index 16b3f1a1d468..597609f26331 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h
> > @@ -1197,6 +1197,7 @@
> > #define ICH_VTR_TDS_MASK (1 << ICH_VTR_TDS_SHIFT)
> >
> > #define ARM64_FEATURE_FIELD_BITS 4
> > +#define ARM64_FEATURE_FIELD_MASK ((1ull << ARM64_FEATURE_FIELD_BITS) - 1)
> >
> > /* Create a mask for the feature bits of the specified feature. */
> > #define ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(x) (GENMASK_ULL(x##_SHIFT + ARM64_FEATURE_FIELD_BITS - 1, x##_SHIFT))
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> > index 5608d3410660..1552cd5581b7 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> > @@ -265,6 +265,181 @@ static bool trap_raz_wi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > return read_zero(vcpu, p);
> > }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * A value for FCT_LOWER_SAFE must be zero and changing that will affect
> > + * ftr_check_types of id_reg_info.
> > + */
> > +enum feature_check_type {
> > + FCT_LOWER_SAFE = 0,
> > + FCT_HIGHER_SAFE,
> > + FCT_HIGHER_OR_ZERO_SAFE,
> > + FCT_EXACT,
> > + FCT_EXACT_OR_ZERO_SAFE,
> > + FCT_IGNORE, /* Don't check (any value is fine) */
> > +};
> > +
> > +static int arm64_check_feature_one(enum feature_check_type type, int val,
> > + int limit)
> > +{
> > + bool is_safe = false;
> > +
> > + if (val == limit)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + switch (type) {
> > + case FCT_LOWER_SAFE:
> > + is_safe = (val <= limit);
> > + break;
> > + case FCT_HIGHER_OR_ZERO_SAFE:
> > + if (val == 0) {
> > + is_safe = true;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + fallthrough;
> > + case FCT_HIGHER_SAFE:
> > + is_safe = (val >= limit);
> > + break;
> > + case FCT_EXACT:
> > + break;
> > + case FCT_EXACT_OR_ZERO_SAFE:
> > + is_safe = (val == 0);
> > + break;
> > + case FCT_IGNORE:
> > + is_safe = true;
> > + break;
> > + default:
> > + WARN_ONCE(1, "Unexpected feature_check_type (%d)\n", type);
> > + break;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return is_safe ? 0 : -1;
> > +}
> > +
> > +#define FCT_TYPE_MASK 0x7
> > +#define FCT_TYPE_SHIFT 1
> > +#define FCT_SIGN_MASK 0x1
> > +#define FCT_SIGN_SHIFT 0
> > +#define FCT_TYPE(val) ((val >> FCT_TYPE_SHIFT) & FCT_TYPE_MASK)
> > +#define FCT_SIGN(val) ((val >> FCT_SIGN_SHIFT) & FCT_SIGN_MASK)
> > +
> > +#define MAKE_FCT(shift, type, sign) \
> > + ((u64)((((type) & FCT_TYPE_MASK) << FCT_TYPE_SHIFT) | \
> > + (((sign) & FCT_SIGN_MASK) << FCT_SIGN_SHIFT)) << (shift))
> > +
> > +/* For signed field */
> > +#define S_FCT(shift, type) MAKE_FCT(shift, type, 1)
> > +/* For unigned field */
> > +#define U_FCT(shift, type) MAKE_FCT(shift, type, 0)
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * @val and @lim are both a value of the ID register. The function checks
> > + * if all features indicated in @val can be supported for guests on the host,
> > + * which supports features indicated in @lim. @check_types indicates how
> > + * features in the ID register needs to be checked.
> > + * See comments for id_reg_info's ftr_check_types field for more detail.
> > + */
> > +static int arm64_check_features(u64 check_types, u64 val, u64 lim)
> > +{
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < 64; i += ARM64_FEATURE_FIELD_BITS) {
> > + u8 ftr_check = (check_types >> i) & ARM64_FEATURE_FIELD_MASK;
> > + bool is_sign = FCT_SIGN(ftr_check);
> > + enum feature_check_type fctype = FCT_TYPE(ftr_check);
> > + int fval, flim, ret;
> > +
> > + fval = cpuid_feature_extract_field(val, i, is_sign);
> > + flim = cpuid_feature_extract_field(lim, i, is_sign);
> > +
> > + ret = arm64_check_feature_one(fctype, fval, flim);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return -E2BIG;
> nit: -EINVAL may be better because depending on the check type this may
> not mean too big.
Yes, that is correct.
This error case means that userspace tried to configure features
or a higher level of features that were not supported on the host.
In that sense, I chose -E2BIG.
I wanted to use an error code specific to this particular case, which
I think makes debugging userspace issue easier when KVM_SET_ONE_REG
fails, and I couldn't find other error codes that fit this case better.
So, I'm trying to avoid using -EINVAL, which is used for other failure
cases.
If you have any other suggested error code for this,
that would be very helpful:)
Thanks,
Reiji
