Hi Sean,
Cheers for the heads-up.
[+Marc and Alex as this looks similar to [1]]
On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 05:01:21PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2022, Peter Gonda wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 8:55 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 07, 2022, Peter Gonda wrote:
> > > > If an SEV-ES guest requests termination, exit to userspace with
> > > > KVM_EXIT_SYSTEM_EVENT and a dedicated SEV_TERM type instead of -EINVAL
> > > > so that userspace can take appropriate action.
> > > >
> > > > See AMD's GHCB spec section '4.1.13 Termination Request' for more details.
> > >
> > > Maybe it'll be obvious by the lack of compilation errors, but the changelog should
> > > call out the flags => ndata+data shenanigans, otherwise this looks like ABI breakage.
> >
> > Hmm I am not sure we can do this change anymore given that we have two
> > call sites using 'flags'
> >
> > arch/arm64/kvm/psci.c:184
> > arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi.c:97
> >
> > I am not at all familiar with ARM and RISC-V but some quick reading
> > tells me these archs also require 64-bit alignment on their 64-bit
> > accesses. If thats correct, should I fix this call sites up by
> > proceeding with this ndata + data[] change and move whatever they are
> > assigning to flags into data[0] like I am doing here? It looks like
> > both of these changes are not in a kernel release so IIUC we can still
> > fix the ABI here?
>
> Yeah, both came in for v5.18. Given that there will be multiple paths that need
> to set data, it's worth adding a common helper to the dirty work.
>
> Anup and Will,
>
> system_event.flags is broken (at least on x86) due to the prior 'type' field not
> being propery padded, e.g. userspace will read/write garbage if the userspace
> and kernel compilers pad structs differently.
>
> struct {
> __u32 type;
> __u64 flags;
> } system_event;
On arm64, I think the compiler is required to put the padding between type
and flags so that both the struct and 'flags' are 64-bit aligned [2]. Does
x86 not offer any guarantees on the overall structure alignment?
> Our plan to unhose this is to change the struct as follows and use bit 31 in the
> 'type' to indicate that ndata+data are valid.
>
> struct {
> __u32 type;
> __u32 ndata;
> __u64 data[16];
> } system_event;
>
> Any objection to updating your architectures to use a helper to set the bit and
> populate ndata+data accordingly? It'll require a userspace update, but v5.18
> hasn't officially released yet so it's not kinda sort not ABI breakage.
It's a bit annoying, as we're using the current structure in Android 13 :/
Obviously, if there's no choice then upstream shouldn't worry, but it means
we'll have to carry a delta in crosvm. Specifically, the new 'ndata' field
is going to be unusable for us because it coincides with the padding.
Will
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220407162327.396183-6-alexandru.elisei@xxxxxxx
[2] https://github.com/ARM-software/abi-aa/blob/60a8eb8c55e999d74dac5e368fc9d7e36e38dda4/aapcs64/aapcs64.rst#composite-types
