On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 11:52:00 +0000,
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Marc,
>
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 08:00:58PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > Some EL2 system registers immediately affect the current execution
> > of the system, so we need to use their respective EL1 counterparts.
> > For this we need to define a mapping between the two. In general,
> > this only affects non-VHE guest hypervisors, as VHE system registers
> > are compatible with the EL1 counterparts.
> >
> > These helpers will get used in subsequent patches.
> >
> > Co-developed-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_nested.h | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_nested.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_nested.h
> > index 1028ac65a897..67a2c0d05233 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_nested.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_nested.h
> > @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
> > #ifndef __ARM64_KVM_NESTED_H
> > #define __ARM64_KVM_NESTED_H
> >
> > +#include <linux/bitfield.h>
> > #include <linux/kvm_host.h>
> >
> > static inline bool nested_virt_in_use(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > @@ -11,4 +12,53 @@ static inline bool nested_virt_in_use(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_HAS_EL2, vcpu->arch.features));
> > }
> >
> > +/* Translation helpers from non-VHE EL2 to EL1 */
> > +static inline u64 tcr_el2_ips_to_tcr_el1_ps(u64 tcr_el2)
>
> When E2H = 0, there is no IPS field in TCR_EL2, but there is a PS field.
> And for TCR_EL1, there is no PS field, but there is an IPS field. Maybe
> tcr_el2_ps_to_tcr_el1_ips() would be more precise, and would also match the
> field defines used by the function?
Yes, good point. Done.
>
> > +{
> > + return (u64)FIELD_GET(TCR_EL2_PS_MASK, tcr_el2) << TCR_IPS_SHIFT;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline u64 translate_tcr_el2_to_tcr_el1(u64 tcr)
> > +{
> > + return TCR_EPD1_MASK | /* disable TTBR1_EL1 */
> > + ((tcr & TCR_EL2_TBI) ? TCR_TBI0 : 0) |
> > + tcr_el2_ips_to_tcr_el1_ps(tcr) |
> > + (tcr & TCR_EL2_TG0_MASK) |
> > + (tcr & TCR_EL2_ORGN0_MASK) |
> > + (tcr & TCR_EL2_IRGN0_MASK) |
> > + (tcr & TCR_EL2_T0SZ_MASK);
>
> There are a few fields in TCR_EL2 which have a corresponding field in
> TCR_EL1, when E2H = 0: HPD -> HPD0 (hierarchical permissions toggle), HA
> and HD (hardware management of dirty bit and access flag), DS (when
> FEAT_LPA2), and probably others. Why do we not also translate them? Is it
> because we hide the feature they depend on (FEAT_HPDS, FEAT_HAFBDS, etc) in
> the guest ID registers? Is it something else?
We do hide the features, and for some of them they simply cannot be
implemented. HA/HD are pretty good example of how the architecture is
broken in this respect (the PT update happens in the shadow, while the
guest can only look at its own copy).
>
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline u64 translate_cptr_el2_to_cpacr_el1(u64 cptr_el2)
> > +{
> > + u64 cpacr_el1 = 0;
> > +
> > + if (!(cptr_el2 & CPTR_EL2_TFP))
> > + cpacr_el1 |= CPACR_EL1_FPEN;
> > + if (cptr_el2 & CPTR_EL2_TTA)
> > + cpacr_el1 |= CPACR_EL1_TTA;
> > + if (!(cptr_el2 & CPTR_EL2_TZ))
> > + cpacr_el1 |= CPACR_EL1_ZEN;
> > +
> > + return cpacr_el1;
>
> Nitpick: it would make comparing against the architecture easier if the
> fields were checked in the order they were definied in the architecture. So
> first check the TTA bit, then TFP and lastly TZ.
You are easy to please! ;-) Done.
>
> I checked the field definitions for CPTR_EL2 and the above looks correct to
> me, as TFP, TTA and TZ were the only fields which affect EL2; I also
> checked that the values in CPACR_EL1 are set correctly to mirror the
> CPTR_EL2 settings.
>
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline u64 translate_sctlr_el2_to_sctlr_el1(u64 sctlr)
> > +{
> > + /* Bit 20 is RES1 in SCTLR_EL1, but RES0 in SCTLR_EL2 */
> > + return sctlr | BIT(20);
>
> Bits 8 and 7 in SCTLR_EL2 are RES0 when E2H,TGE != {1,1}, but they are RES1
> in SCTLR_EL1 if EL0 is not capable of using AArch32. Shouldn't we also set
> them?
>
> Bit 5 in SCTLR_EL2 is RES1 when E2H,TGE != {1,1}, but it is RES0 in
> SCTLR_EL1 if EL0 is not capable of using AArch32. Shouldn't we clear
> it?
I actually reworked all of that as such:
static inline u64 translate_sctlr_el2_to_sctlr_el1(u64 val)
{
/* Only preserve the minimal set of bits we support */
val &= (SCTLR_ELx_M | SCTLR_ELx_A | SCTLR_ELx_C | SCTLR_ELx_SA |
SCTLR_ELx_I | SCTLR_ELx_IESB | SCTLR_ELx_WXN | SCTLR_ELx_EE);
val |= SCTLR_EL1_RES1;
return val;
}
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline u64 translate_ttbr0_el2_to_ttbr0_el1(u64 ttbr0)
> > +{
> > + /* Force ASID to 0 (ASID 0 or RES0) */
>
> That got me confused at first, until I realized that the first ASID refers
> to the ASID field of the register, and the second ASID to the translation
> table property. Might be more helpful if the comment was simply "Clear the
> ASID field" or something like that.
Done.
>
> > + return ttbr0 & ~GENMASK_ULL(63, 48);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline u64 translate_cnthctl_el2_to_cntkctl_el1(u64 cnthctl)
> > +{
> > + return ((FIELD_GET(CNTHCTL_EL1PCTEN | CNTHCTL_EL1PCEN, cnthctl) << 10) |
>
> I don't understand why those two bits are left shifted by 10, the result is
> 0x3 << 10 and CNTKCTL_EL[16:10] is RES0.
>
> > + (cnthctl & (CNTHCTL_EVNTI | CNTHCTL_EVNTDIR | CNTHCTL_EVNTEN)));
>
> CNTKCTL_EL1.{EVNTI,EVNTDIR,EVNTEN} refer to CNT*V*CT_EL0,
> CNTHCTL_EL2.{EVNTI,EVNTDIR,EVNTEN} refer to CNT*P*CT_EL0. I don't
> understand why they are treated as equivalent.
>
> I get the feeling I'm misunderstanding something about this
> function.
It's a classic one. Remember that we are running VHE, and remapping a
nVHE view of CNTHCTL_EL2 into the VHE view *for the guest*, and that
these things are completely shifted around (it has the CNTKCTL_EL1
format).
For example, on nVHE, CNTHCTL_EL2.EL1PCTEN is bit 0. On nVHE, this is
bit 10. That's why we have this shift, and that you now need some
paracetamol.
You can also look at the way we deal with the same stuff in
kvm_timer_init_vhe().
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
