On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:01:57AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 11/05/13 01:38, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 05:36:52PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >> On 24/04/13 18:17, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 6:49 AM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> On 24/04/13 00:02, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 05:17:32PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >>>>>> Wire the init of a 32bit vcpu by allowing 32bit modes in pstate,
> >>>>>> and providing sensible defaults out of reset state.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This feature is of course conditioned by the presence of 32bit
> >>>>>> capability on the physical CPU, and is checked by the KVM_CAP_ARM_EL1_32BIT
> >>>>>> capability.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 2 +-
> >>>>>> arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 1 +
> >>>>>> arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c | 6 ++++++
> >>>>>> arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >>>>>> include/uapi/linux/kvm.h | 1 +
> >>>>>> 5 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >>>>>> index d44064d..c3ec107 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >>>>>> @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@
> >>>>>> #include <asm/kvm_vgic.h>
> >>>>>> #include <asm/kvm_arch_timer.h>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -#define KVM_VCPU_MAX_FEATURES 1
> >>>>>> +#define KVM_VCPU_MAX_FEATURES 2
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> /* We don't currently support large pages. */
> >>>>>> #define KVM_HPAGE_GFN_SHIFT(x) 0
> >>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> >>>>>> index 5b1110c..5031f42 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> >>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> >>>>>> @@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ struct kvm_regs {
> >>>>>> #define KVM_VGIC_V2_CPU_SIZE 0x2000
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> #define KVM_ARM_VCPU_POWER_OFF 0 /* CPU is started in OFF state */
> >>>>>> +#define KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT 1 /* CPU running a 32bit VM */
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> struct kvm_vcpu_init {
> >>>>>> __u32 target;
> >>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c
> >>>>>> index 47d3729..74ef7d5 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c
> >>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c
> >>>>>> @@ -93,6 +93,12 @@ static int set_core_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct kvm_one_reg *reg)
> >>>>>> if (off == KVM_REG_ARM_CORE_REG(regs.pstate)) {
> >>>>>> unsigned long mode = (*(unsigned long *)valp) & COMPAT_PSR_MODE_MASK;
> >>>>>> switch (mode) {
> >>>>>> + case COMPAT_PSR_MODE_USR:
> >>>>>> + case COMPAT_PSR_MODE_FIQ:
> >>>>>> + case COMPAT_PSR_MODE_IRQ:
> >>>>>> + case COMPAT_PSR_MODE_SVC:
> >>>>>> + case COMPAT_PSR_MODE_ABT:
> >>>>>> + case COMPAT_PSR_MODE_UND:
> >>>>>> case PSR_MODE_EL0t:
> >>>>>> case PSR_MODE_EL1t:
> >>>>>> case PSR_MODE_EL1h:
> >>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c
> >>>>>> index bc33e76..a282d35 100644
> >>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c
> >>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c
> >>>>>> @@ -35,11 +35,27 @@ static struct kvm_regs default_regs_reset = {
> >>>>>> .regs.pstate = PSR_MODE_EL1h | PSR_A_BIT | PSR_I_BIT | PSR_F_BIT,
> >>>>>> };
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> +static struct kvm_regs default_regs_reset32 = {
> >>>>>> + .regs.pstate = (COMPAT_PSR_MODE_SVC | COMPAT_PSR_A_BIT |
> >>>>>> + COMPAT_PSR_I_BIT | COMPAT_PSR_F_BIT),
> >>>>>> +};
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> +static bool cpu_has_32bit_el1(void)
> >>>>>> +{
> >>>>>> + u64 pfr0;
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> + pfr0 = read_cpuid(ID_AA64PFR0_EL1);
> >>>>>> + return !!(pfr0 & 0x20);
> >>>>>
> >>>>> again we don't need the double negation
> >>>>
> >>>> I still hold that it makes things more readable.
> >>>>
> >>>>>> +}
> >>>>>> +
> >>>>>> int kvm_arch_dev_ioctl_check_extention(long ext)
> >>>>>> {
> >>>>>> int r;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> switch (ext) {
> >>>>>> + case KVM_CAP_ARM_EL1_32BIT:
> >>>>>> + r = cpu_has_32bit_el1();
> >>>>>> + break;
> >>>>>> default:
> >>>>>> r = 0;
> >>>>>> }
> >>>>>> @@ -62,7 +78,14 @@ int kvm_reset_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> switch (vcpu->arch.target) {
> >>>>>> default:
> >>>>>> - cpu_reset = &default_regs_reset;
> >>>>>> + if (test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, vcpu->arch.features)) {
> >>>>>> + if (!cpu_has_32bit_el1())
> >>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm not sure EINVAL is appropriate here, the value specified was not
> >>>>> incorrect, it's that the hardware doesn't support it. ENXIO, ENODEV, and
> >>>>> add that in Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt ?
> >>>>
> >>>> Not sure. If you ended up here, it means you tried to start a 32bit
> >>>> guest on a 64bit-only CPU, despite KVM_CAP_ARM_EL1_32BIT telling you
> >>>> that your CPU is not 32bit capable.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is clearly an invalid input, isn't it?
> >>>>
> >>> check the API documentation for this ioctl, I don't think that's the
> >>> type of invalid input meant when describing the meaning of EINVAL. If
> >>> you feel strongly about it of course it's no big deal, but I think
> >>> EINVAL is so overloaded anyway that telling the user something more
> >>> specific would be great, but I'll leave it up to you.
> >>
> >> [bit late on this one...]
> >>
> >> Here's what the documentation says:
> >> <quote>
> >> 4.77 KVM_ARM_VCPU_INIT
> >>
> >> Capability: basic
> >> Architectures: arm, arm64
> >> Type: vcpu ioctl
> >> Parameters: struct struct kvm_vcpu_init (in)
> >> Returns: 0 on success; -1 on error
> >> Errors:
> >> EINVAL: the target is unknown, or the combination of features is invalid.
> >> ENOENT: a features bit specified is unknown.
> >> </quote>
> >>
> >> When this call fails, it is because you've requested a feature
> >> that is invalid for this CPU. To me, that exactly fits the
> >> EINVAL entry copied above.
> >>
> >> Or am I completely misunderstanding it?
> >>
> > I read the EINVAL to say that you supplied something which is invalid
> > for the software interface and you should fix your user space code.
>
> Exactly. The code should have checked for the corresponding capability
> before blindly requesting that feature. That's exactly why we have
> capabilities.
>
> > The fact that you're requesting a feature that your hardware doesn't
> > support is a different thing IMHO.
>
> Well, if you're allowed to call into this without checking the
> capabilities, then I suggest we remove them, because they are clearly
> superfluous.
>
I still see a useful distinction, but I don't care enough to keep
arguing.
-Christoffer
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
