On Friday 27 Nov 2020 at 17:14:11 (+0000), Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 2020-11-27 11:53, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 10:26:47AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > > On 2020-11-24 15:50, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > If a vCPU is caught running 32-bit code on a system with mismatched > > > > support at EL0, then we should kill it. > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 11 ++++++++++- > > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c > > > > index 5750ec34960e..d322ac0f4a8e 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c > > > > @@ -633,6 +633,15 @@ static void check_vcpu_requests(struct kvm_vcpu > > > > *vcpu) > > > > } > > > > } > > > > > > > > +static bool vcpu_mode_is_bad_32bit(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > > > +{ > > > > + if (likely(!vcpu_mode_is_32bit(vcpu))) > > > > + return false; > > > > + > > > > + return !system_supports_32bit_el0() || > > > > + static_branch_unlikely(&arm64_mismatched_32bit_el0); > > > > +} > > > > + > > > > /** > > > > * kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run - the main VCPU run function to execute > > > > guest code > > > > * @vcpu: The VCPU pointer > > > > @@ -816,7 +825,7 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > > > * with the asymmetric AArch32 case), return to userspace with > > > > * a fatal error. > > > > */ > > > > - if (!system_supports_32bit_el0() && vcpu_mode_is_32bit(vcpu)) { > > > > + if (vcpu_mode_is_bad_32bit(vcpu)) { > > > > /* > > > > * As we have caught the guest red-handed, decide that > > > > * it isn't fit for purpose anymore by making the vcpu > > > > > > Given the new definition of system_supports_32bit_el0() in the > > > previous > > > patch, > > > why do we need this patch at all? > > > > I think the check is still needed, as this is an unusual case where we > > want to reject the mismatched system. For example, imagine > > 'arm64_mismatched_32bit_el0' is true and we're on a mismatched system: > > in > > this case system_supports_32bit_el0() will return 'true' because we > > allow 32-bit applications to run, we support the 32-bit personality etc. > > > > However, we still want to terminate 32-bit vCPUs if we spot them in this > > situation, so we have to check for: > > > > !system_supports_32bit_el0() || > > static_branch_unlikely(&arm64_mismatched_32bit_el0) > > > > so that we only allow 32-bit vCPUs when all of the physical CPUs support > > it at EL0. > > > > I could make this clearer either by adding a comment, or avoiding > > system_supports_32bit_el0() entirely here and just checking the > > sanitised SYS_ID_AA64PFR0_EL1 register directly instead. > > > > What do you prefer? > > Yeah, the sanitized read feels better, if only because that is > what we are going to read in all the valid cases, unfortunately. > read_sanitised_ftr_reg() is sadly not designed to be called on > a fast path, meaning that 32bit guests will do a bsearch() on > the ID-regs every time they exit... > > I guess we will have to evaluate how much we loose with this. Could we use the trick we have for arm64_ftr_reg_ctrel0 to speed this up? Thanks, Quentin