On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 17:36:16 +0100,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 03:05:57PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > It recently appeared that, whien running VHE, there is a notable
> > difference between using CNTKCTL_EL1 and CNTHCTL_EL2, despite what
> > the architecture documents:
> >
> > - When accessed from EL2, bits [19:18] and [16:10] same bits have
> > the same assignment as CNTHCTL_EL2
> > - When accessed from EL1, bits [19:18] and [16:10] are RES0
> >
> > It is all OK, until you factor in NV, where the EL2 guest runs at EL1.
> > In this configuration, CNTKCTL_EL11 doesn't trap, nor ends up in
> > the VNCR page. This means that any write from the guest affecting
> > CNTHCTL_EL2 using CNTKCTL_EL1 ends up losing some state. Not good.
> >
> > The fix it obvious: don't use CNTKCTL_EL1 if you want to change bits
> > that are not part of the EL1 definition of CNTKCTL_EL1, and use
> > CNTHCTL_EL2 instead. This doesn't change anything for a bare-metal OS,
> > and fixes it when running under NV. The NV hypervisor will itself
> > have to work harder to merge the two accessors.
> >
> > Note that there is a pending update to the architecture to address
> > this issue by making the affected bits UNKNOWN when CNTKCTL_EL1 is
> > user from EL2 with VHE enabled.
> >
> > Fixes: c605ee245097 ("KVM: arm64: timers: Allow physical offset without CNTPOFF_EL2")
> > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # v6.4
>
> Looks good. I'll probably open a fixes branch around -rc1 and pick this
> patch up then.
Awesome, thanks.
(/me goes back to encoding FGT handling by hand... :-/)
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
