Re: [PATCH v3 09/37] KVM: s390: protvirt: Add initial vm and cpu lifecycle handling

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> +static int kvm_s390_handle_pv(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_pv_cmd *cmd)
> +{
> +	int r = 0;
> +	u16 dummy;
> +	void __user *argp = (void __user *)cmd->data;
> +
> +	switch (cmd->cmd) {
> +	case KVM_PV_ENABLE: {
> +		r = -EINVAL;
> +		if (kvm_s390_pv_is_protected(kvm))
> +			break;
> +
> +		r = kvm_s390_pv_alloc_vm(kvm);
> +		if (r)
> +			break;
> +
> +		/* FMT 4 SIE needs esca */
> +		r = sca_switch_to_extended(kvm);
> +		if (r) {
> +			kvm_s390_pv_dealloc_vm(kvm);
> +			kvm_s390_vcpu_unblock_all(kvm);

You forgot to remove that.

> +			mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);

That's certainly wrong as well.

> +			break;
> +		}
> +		r = kvm_s390_pv_create_vm(kvm, &cmd->rc, &cmd->rrc);
> +		if (!r)
> +			r = kvm_s390_cpus_to_pv(kvm, &cmd->rc, &cmd->rrc);
> +		if (r)
> +			kvm_s390_pv_destroy_vm(kvm, &dummy, &dummy);

Should there be a kvm_s390_pv_dealloc_vm() as well?

> +
> +		break;
> +	}
> +	case KVM_PV_DISABLE: {
> +		r = -EINVAL;
> +		if (!kvm_s390_pv_is_protected(kvm))
> +			break;
> +
> +		kvm_s390_cpus_from_pv(kvm, &cmd->rc, &cmd->rrc);
> +		r = kvm_s390_pv_destroy_vm(kvm, &cmd->rc, &cmd->rrc);
> +		if (!r)
> +			kvm_s390_pv_dealloc_vm(kvm);

Hm, if destroy fails, the CPUs would already have been removed.

Is there a way to make kvm_s390_pv_destroy_vm() never fail? The return
value is always ignored except here ... which looks wrong.

> +		break;
> +	}

[...]

> @@ -2558,10 +2724,21 @@ static void kvm_free_vcpus(struct kvm *kvm)
>  
>  void kvm_arch_destroy_vm(struct kvm *kvm)
>  {
> +	u16 rc, rrc;
>  	kvm_free_vcpus(kvm);
>  	sca_dispose(kvm);
> -	debug_unregister(kvm->arch.dbf);
>  	kvm_s390_gisa_destroy(kvm);
> +	/*
> +	 * We are already at the end of life and kvm->lock is not taken.
> +	 * This is ok as the file descriptor is closed by now and nobody
> +	 * can mess with the pv state. To avoid lockdep_assert_held from
> +	 * complaining we do not use kvm_s390_pv_is_protected.
> +	 */
> +	if (kvm_s390_pv_get_handle(kvm)) {

I'd prefer something like kvm_s390_pv_is_protected_unlocked(), but I
guess for these few use cases, this is fine.


> +		kvm_s390_pv_destroy_vm(kvm, &rc, &rrc);
> +		kvm_s390_pv_dealloc_vm(kvm);
> +	}
> +	debug_unregister(kvm->arch.dbf);
>  	free_page((unsigned long)kvm->arch.sie_page2);
>  	if (!kvm_is_ucontrol(kvm))
>  		gmap_remove(kvm->arch.gmap);
> @@ -2657,6 +2834,9 @@ static int sca_switch_to_extended(struct kvm *kvm)
>  	unsigned int vcpu_idx;
>  	u32 scaol, scaoh;
>  
> +	if (kvm->arch.use_esca)
> +		return 0;
> +
>  	new_sca = alloc_pages_exact(sizeof(*new_sca), GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_ZERO);
>  	if (!new_sca)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
> @@ -2908,6 +3088,7 @@ static void kvm_s390_vcpu_setup_model(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  static int kvm_s390_vcpu_setup(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  {
>  	int rc = 0;
> +	u16 uvrc, uvrrc;
>  
>  	atomic_set(&vcpu->arch.sie_block->cpuflags, CPUSTAT_ZARCH |
>  						    CPUSTAT_SM |
> @@ -2975,6 +3156,11 @@ static int kvm_s390_vcpu_setup(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  
>  	kvm_s390_vcpu_crypto_setup(vcpu);
>  
> +	mutex_lock(&vcpu->kvm->lock);
> +	if (kvm_s390_pv_is_protected(vcpu->kvm))
> +		rc = kvm_s390_pv_create_cpu(vcpu, &uvrc, &uvrrc);
> +	mutex_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->lock);

Do we have to cleanup anything? (e.g., cmma page) I *think*
kvm_arch_vcpu_destroy() is not called when kvm_arch_vcpu_create() fails ...

> +
>  	return rc;
>  }
>  
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.h b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.h
> index 83dabb18e4d9..d62de29b2d6c 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.h
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.h
> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
>  #include <linux/hrtimer.h>
>  #include <linux/kvm.h>
>  #include <linux/kvm_host.h>
> +#include <linux/lockdep.h>
>  #include <asm/facility.h>
>  #include <asm/processor.h>
>  #include <asm/sclp.h>
> @@ -207,6 +208,40 @@ static inline int kvm_s390_user_cpu_state_ctrl(struct kvm *kvm)
>  	return kvm->arch.user_cpu_state_ctrl != 0;
>  }
>  
> +/* implemented in pv.c */
> +void kvm_s390_pv_dealloc_vm(struct kvm *kvm);
> +int kvm_s390_pv_alloc_vm(struct kvm *kvm);
> +int kvm_s390_pv_create_vm(struct kvm *kvm, u16 *rc, u16 *rrc);
> +int kvm_s390_pv_create_cpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u16 *rc, u16 *rrc);
> +int kvm_s390_pv_destroy_vm(struct kvm *kvm, u16 *rc, u16 *rrc);
> +void kvm_s390_pv_destroy_cpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u16 *rc, u16 *rrc);
> +int kvm_s390_pv_set_sec_parms(struct kvm *kvm, void *hdr, u64 length, u16 *rc,
> +			      u16 *rrc);
> +int kvm_s390_pv_unpack(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long addr, unsigned long size,
> +		       unsigned long tweak, u16 *rc, u16 *rrc);
> +
> +static inline u64 kvm_s390_pv_get_handle(struct kvm *kvm)
> +{
> +	return kvm->arch.pv.handle;
> +}
> +
> +static inline u64 kvm_s390_pv_cpu_get_handle(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> +	return vcpu->arch.pv.handle;
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool kvm_s390_pv_is_protected(struct kvm *kvm)

Could have been "kvm_s390_is_protected" or "kvm_s390_is_pv", but also
fine with me. (maybe I even suggested that one without caring about that
detail :) )

[...]

> +
>  /* implemented in interrupt.c */
>  int kvm_s390_handle_wait(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>  void kvm_s390_vcpu_wakeup(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/pv.c b/arch/s390/kvm/pv.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..67ea9a18ed8f
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/pv.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,256 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/*
> + * Hosting Secure Execution virtual machines
> + *
> + * Copyright IBM Corp. 2019
> + *    Author(s): Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

I'd assume you're an author as well at this point ;)

[...]

> +
> +int kvm_s390_pv_set_sec_parms(struct kvm *kvm, void *hdr, u64 length, u16 *rc,
> +			      u16 *rrc)
> +{
> +	struct uv_cb_ssc uvcb = {
> +		.header.cmd = UVC_CMD_SET_SEC_CONF_PARAMS,
> +		.header.len = sizeof(uvcb),
> +		.sec_header_origin = (u64)hdr,
> +		.sec_header_len = length,
> +		.guest_handle = kvm_s390_pv_get_handle(kvm),
> +	};
> +	int cc;
> +
> +	cc = uv_call(0, (u64)&uvcb);

int cc = ... could be done.


> +	*rc = uvcb.header.rc;
> +	*rrc = uvcb.header.rrc;
> +	KVM_UV_EVENT(kvm, 3, "PROTVIRT VM SET PARMS: rc %x rrc %x",
> +		     *rc, *rrc);
> +	if (cc)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int unpack_one(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long addr, u64 tweak[2],
> +		      u16 *rc, u16 *rrc)
> +{
> +	struct uv_cb_unp uvcb = {
> +		.header.cmd = UVC_CMD_UNPACK_IMG,
> +		.header.len = sizeof(uvcb),
> +		.guest_handle = kvm_s390_pv_get_handle(kvm),
> +		.gaddr = addr,
> +		.tweak[0] = tweak[0],
> +		.tweak[1] = tweak[1],
> +	};
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	ret = gmap_make_secure(kvm->arch.gmap, addr, &uvcb);

... similarly, with ret.

> +	*rc = uvcb.header.rc;
> +	*rrc = uvcb.header.rrc;
> +
> +	if (ret && ret != -EAGAIN)
> +		KVM_UV_EVENT(kvm, 3, "PROTVIRT VM UNPACK: failed addr %llx with rc %x rrc %x",
> +			     uvcb.gaddr, *rc, *rrc);
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
> +int kvm_s390_pv_unpack(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long addr, unsigned long size,
> +		       unsigned long tweak, u16 *rc, u16 *rrc)
> +{
> +	u64 tw[2] = {tweak, 0};

I have no idea what tweaks are in this context. So I have to trust you
guys on the implementation, because I don't understand it.

Especially, why can't we simply have

s/tweak/tweak/

offset = 0;

while (offset < size) {
	...
	ret = unpack_one(kvm, addr, tweak, offset, rc, rrc);
				    ^ no idea what tweak is
	...
	... offset +=  PAGE_SIZE;
}

But maybe I am missing what the whole array is about.

> +	int ret = 0;
> +
> +	if (addr & ~PAGE_MASK || !size || size & ~PAGE_MASK)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	KVM_UV_EVENT(kvm, 3, "PROTVIRT VM UNPACK: start addr %lx size %lx",
> +		     addr, size);
> +
> +	while (tw[1] < size) {> +		ret = unpack_one(kvm, addr, tw, rc, rrc);
> +		if (ret == -EAGAIN) {
> +			cond_resched();
> +			if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> +				break;
> +			continue;
> +		}
> +		if (ret)
> +			break;
> +		addr += PAGE_SIZE;
> +		tw[1] += PAGE_SIZE;
> +	}
> +	if (!ret)
> +		KVM_UV_EVENT(kvm, 3, "%s", "PROTVIRT VM UNPACK: successful");
> +	return ret;
> +}

[...]
> +enum pv_cmd_id {
> +	KVM_PV_ENABLE,
> +	KVM_PV_DISABLE,
> +	KVM_PV_VM_SET_SEC_PARMS,
> +	KVM_PV_VM_UNPACK,
> +	KVM_PV_VM_VERIFY,

I wonder if we should just drop "_VM" from all of these ...

[...]


-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb





[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Info]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Linux Media]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux