On 10/21/20 13:02, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2020-10-21 11:46, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > On a system without uniform support for AArch32 at EL0, it is possible
> > for the guest to force run AArch32 at EL0 and potentially cause an
> > illegal exception if running on the wrong core.
>
> s/the wrong core/a core without AArch32/
>
> >
> > Add an extra check to catch if the guest ever does that and prevent it
>
> Not "if the guest ever does that". Rather "let's hope we are lucky enough
> to catch the guest doing that".
>
> > from running again by resetting vcpu->arch.target and return
> > ARM_EXCEPTION_IL.
> >
> > We try to catch this misbehavior as early as possible and not rely on
> > PSTATE.IL to occur.
> >
> > Tested on Juno by instrumenting the host to:
> >
> > * Fake asym aarch32.
> > * Instrument KVM to make the asymmetry visible to the guest.
> >
> > Any attempt to run 32bit app in the guest will produce such error on
> > qemu:
>
> Not *any* attempt. Only the ones where the guest exits whilst in
> AArch32 EL0. It is perfectly possible for the guest to use AArch32
> undetected for quite a while.
Thanks Marc! I'll change them all.
> >
> > # ./test
> > error: kvm run failed Invalid argument
> > PC=ffff800010945080 X00=ffff800016a45014 X01=ffff800010945058
> > X02=ffff800016917190 X03=0000000000000000 X04=0000000000000000
> > X05=00000000fffffffb X06=0000000000000000 X07=ffff80001000bab0
> > X08=0000000000000000 X09=0000000092ec5193 X10=0000000000000000
> > X11=ffff80001608ff40 X12=ffff000075fcde86 X13=ffff000075fcde88
> > X14=ffffffffffffffff X15=ffff00007b2105a8 X16=ffff00007b006d50
> > X17=0000000000000000 X18=0000000000000000 X19=ffff00007a82b000
> > X20=0000000000000000 X21=ffff800015ccd158 X22=ffff00007a82b040
> > X23=ffff00007a82b008 X24=0000000000000000 X25=ffff800015d169b0
> > X26=ffff8000126d05bc X27=0000000000000000 X28=0000000000000000
> > X29=ffff80001000ba90 X30=ffff80001093f3dc SP=ffff80001000ba90
> > PSTATE=60000005 -ZC- EL1h
> > qemu-system-aarch64: Failed to get KVM_REG_ARM_TIMER_CNT
>
> It'd be worth working out:
> - why does this show an AArch64 mode it we caught the vcpu in AArch32?
> - why does QEMU shout about the timer register?
/me puts a monocular on
Which bit is the AArch64?
It did surprise me that it is shouting about the timer. My guess was that
a timer interrupt at the guest between exit/reentry caused the state change and
the failure to read the timer register? Since the target is no longer valid it
falls over, hopefully as expected. I could have been naive of course. That
explanation made sense to my mind so I didn't dig further.
> > Aborted
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > index b588c3b5c2f0..c2fa57f56a94 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > @@ -804,6 +804,19 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >
> > preempt_enable();
> >
> > + /*
> > + * The ARMv8 architecture doesn't give the hypervisor
> > + * a mechanism to prevent a guest from dropping to AArch32 EL0
> > + * if implemented by the CPU. If we spot the guest in such
> > + * state and that we decided it wasn't supposed to do so (like
> > + * with the asymmetric AArch32 case), return to userspace with
> > + * a fatal error.
> > + */
>
> Please add a comment explaining the effects of setting target to -1.
> Something
> like:
>
> "As we have caught the guest red-handed, decide that it isn't fit for
> purpose
> anymore by making the4 vcpu invalid. The VMM can try and fix it by issuing
> a KVM_ARM_VCPU_INIT if it really wants to."
Will do.
Thanks
--
Qais Yousef
>
> > + if (!system_supports_32bit_el0() && vcpu_mode_is_32bit(vcpu)) {
> > + vcpu->arch.target = -1;
> > + ret = ARM_EXCEPTION_IL;
> > + }
> > +
> > ret = handle_exit(vcpu, ret);
> > }
>
> M.
> --
> Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
