On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 11:12:46AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 02/08/16 10:40, Andre Przywara wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 01/08/16 19:20, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 06:28:50PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >>> From: Andre Przywara <andre.przyw...@arm.com>
> >>>
> >>> In the GICv3 redistributor there are the PENDBASER and PROPBASER
> >>> registers which we did not emulate so far, as they only make sense
> >>> when having an ITS. In preparation for that emulate those MMIO
> >>> accesses by storing the 64-bit data written into it into a variable
> >>> which we later read in the ITS emulation.
> >>> We also sanitise the registers, making sure RES0 regions are respected
> >>> and checking for valid memory attributes.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przyw...@arm.com>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyng...@arm.com>
> >>> Tested-by: Eric Auger <eric.au...@redhat.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyng...@arm.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> include/kvm/arm_vgic.h | 13 ++++
> >>> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c | 153
> >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >>> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio.h | 8 ++
> >>> virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-v3.c | 11 ++-
> >>> 4 files changed, 181 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
> >>> index 450b4da..df2dec5 100644
> >>> --- a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
> >>> +++ b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
> >>> @@ -146,6 +146,14 @@ struct vgic_dist {
> >>> struct vgic_irq *spis;
> >>>
> >>> struct vgic_io_device dist_iodev;
> >>> +
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * Contains the attributes and gpa of the LPI configuration table.
> >>> + * Since we report GICR_TYPER.CommonLPIAff as 0b00, we can share
> >>> + * one address across all redistributors.
> >>> + * GICv3 spec: 6.1.2 "LPI Configuration tables"
> >>> + */
> >>> + u64 propbaser;
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> struct vgic_v2_cpu_if {
> >>> @@ -200,6 +208,11 @@ struct vgic_cpu {
> >>> */
> >>> struct vgic_io_device rd_iodev;
> >>> struct vgic_io_device sgi_iodev;
> >>> +
> >>> + /* Contains the attributes and gpa of the LPI pending tables. */
> >>> + u64 pendbaser;
> >>> +
> >>> + bool lpis_enabled;
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> int kvm_vgic_addr(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long type, u64 *addr, bool
> >>> write);
> >>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
> >>> b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
> >>> index bfcafbd..278bfbb 100644
> >>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
> >>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
> >>> @@ -29,6 +29,19 @@ static unsigned long extract_bytes(unsigned long data,
> >>> unsigned int offset,
> >>> return (data >> (offset * 8)) & GENMASK_ULL(num * 8 - 1, 0);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> +/* allows updates of any half of a 64-bit register (or the whole thing)
> >>> */
> >>> +static u64 update_64bit_reg(u64 reg, unsigned int offset, unsigned int
> >>> len,
> >>> + unsigned long val)
> >>> +{
> >>> + int lower = (offset & 4) * 8;
> >>> + int upper = lower + 8 * len - 1;
> >>> +
> >>> + reg &= ~GENMASK_ULL(upper, lower);
> >>> + val &= GENMASK_ULL(len * 8 - 1, 0);
> >>> +
> >>> + return reg | ((u64)val << lower);
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> static unsined long vgic_mmio_read_v3_misc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> >>> gpa_t addr, unsigned int len)
> >>> {
> >>> @@ -152,6 +165,142 @@ static unsigned long
> >>> vgic_mmio_read_v3_idregs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> >>> return 0;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> +/* We want to avoid outer shareable. */
> >>> +u64 vgic_sanitise_shareability(u64 field)
> >>> +{
> >>> + switch (field) {
> >>> + case GIC_BASER_OuterShareable:
> >>> + return GIC_BASER_InnerShareable;
> >>> + default:
> >>> + return field;
> >>> + }
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +/* Avoid any inner non-cacheable mapping. */
> >>> +u64 vgic_sanitise_inner_cacheability(u64 field)
> >>> +{
> >>> + switch (field) {
> >>> + case GIC_BASER_CACHE_nCnB:
> >>> + case GIC_BASER_CACHE_nC:
> >>> + return GIC_BASER_CACHE_RaWb;
> >>> + default:
> >>> + return field;
> >>> + }
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +/* Non-cacheable or same-as-inner are OK. */
> >>> +u64 vgic_sanitise_outer_cacheability(u64 field)
> >>> +{
> >>> + switch (field) {
> >>> + case GIC_BASER_CACHE_SameAsInner:
> >>> + case GIC_BASER_CACHE_nC:
> >>> + return field;
> >>> + default:
> >>> + return GIC_BASER_CACHE_nC;
> >>> + }
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +u64 vgic_sanitise_field(u64 reg, u64 field_mask, int field_shift,
> >>> + u64 (*sanitise_fn)(u64))
> >>> +{
> >>> + u64 field = (reg & field_mask) >> field_shift;
> >>> +
> >>> + field = sanitise_fn(field) << field_shift;
> >>> + return (reg & ~field_mask) | field;
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +#define PROPBASER_RES0_MASK
> >>> \
> >>> + (GENMASK_ULL(63, 59) | GENMASK_ULL(55, 52) | GENMASK_ULL(6, 5))
> >>> +#define PENDBASER_RES0_MASK
> >>> \
> >>> + (BIT_ULL(63) | GENMASK_ULL(61, 59) | GENMASK_ULL(55, 52) | \
> >>> + GENMASK_ULL(15, 12) | GENMASK_ULL(6, 0))
> >>> +
> >>> +static u64 vgic_sanitise_pendbaser(u64 reg)
> >>> +{
> >>> + reg = vgic_sanitise_field(reg, GICR_PENDBASER_SHAREABILITY_MASK,
> >>> + GICR_PENDBASER_SHAREABILITY_SHIFT,
> >>> + vgic_sanitise_shareability);
> >>> + reg = vgic_sanitise_field(reg, GICR_PENDBASER_INNER_CACHEABILITY_MASK,
> >>> + GICR_PENDBASER_INNER_CACHEABILITY_SHIFT,
> >>> + vgic_sanitise_inner_cacheability);
> >>> + reg = vgic_sanitise_field(reg, GICR_PENDBASER_OUTER_CACHEABILITY_MASK,
> >>> + GICR_PENDBASER_OUTER_CACHEABILITY_SHIFT,
> >>> + vgic_sanitise_outer_cacheability);
> >>> +
> >>> + reg &= ~PENDBASER_RES0_MASK;
> >>> + reg &= ~GENMASK_ULL(51, 48);
> >>> +
> >>> + return reg;
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +static u64 vgic_sanitise_propbaser(u64 reg)
> >>> +{
> >>> + reg = vgic_sanitise_field(reg, GICR_PROPBASER_SHAREABILITY_MASK,
> >>> + GICR_PROPBASER_SHAREABILITY_SHIFT,
> >>> + vgic_sanitise_shareability);
> >>> + reg = vgic_sanitise_field(reg, GICR_PROPBASER_INNER_CACHEABILITY_MASK,
> >>> + GICR_PROPBASER_INNER_CACHEABILITY_SHIFT,
> >>> + vgic_sanitise_inner_cacheability);
> >>> + reg = vgic_sanitise_field(reg, GICR_PROPBASER_OUTER_CACHEABILITY_MASK,
> >>> + GICR_PROPBASER_OUTER_CACHEABILITY_SHIFT,
> >>> + vgic_sanitise_outer_cacheability);
> >>> +
> >>> + reg &= ~PROPBASER_RES0_MASK;
> >>> + reg &= ~GENMASK_ULL(51, 48);
> >>> + return reg;
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +static unsigned long vgic_mmio_read_propbase(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> >>> + gpa_t addr, unsigned int len)
> >>> +{
> >>> + struct vgic_dist *dist = &vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic;
> >>> +
> >>> + return extract_bytes(dist->propbaser, addr & 7, len);
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> +static void vgic_mmio_write_propbase(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> >>> + gpa_t addr, unsigned int len,
> >>> + unsigned long val)
> >>> +{
> >>> + struct vgic_dist *dist = &vcpu->kvm->arch.vgic;
> >>> + struct vgic_cpu *vgic_cpu = &vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu;
> >>> + u64 propbaser = dist->propbaser;
> >>> +
> >>> + /* Storing a value with LPIs already enabled is undefined */
> >>> + if (vgic_cpu->lpis_enabled)
> >>> + return;
> >>> +
> >>> + propbaser = update_64bit_reg(propbaser, addr & 4, len, val);
> >>> + propbaser = vgic_sanitise_propbaser(propbaser);
> >>> +
> >>> + dist->propbaser = propbaser;
> >>
> >> Which guarantees do we have that this will always be a single atomic
> >> write?
> >
> > At least on arm64 - which is the only architecture this code is
> > compiling for at the moment - I don't see why this shouldn't be a single
> > write:
> > str x19, [x22,#3544]
> > is what my setup here creates.
> >
> > Do we need something stronger? Do we want to postpone this to the point
> > when we get arm(32) support?
>
> This is a *device*. It shouldn't be affected by whatever drives it.
>
> Now, and more to the point: the write shouldn't have to be atomic. All
> 64bit registers should be able to cope with 32bit writes to it, as
> described in the architecture spec (IHI0069C 8.1.3).
That's not my concern. My concern is that you have two CPUs updating
the propbaser, once after the other, and you end up with a mix of the
two updates. If this C-code can ever become two 32-bit writes, for
example, and these can happen in parallel you can end up with something
like that.
If there is not valid expectation from guest software that a real device
stores either one or the other value, then it's fine to leave it as is.
Thinking about it, any sane guest would probably synchronize multiple
writes to this register itself?
>
> The important thing to ensure is that we don't use that value as long it
> can change, which means that we can't use it as long as LPIs are
> disabled. Which means that things like update_lpi_config() shouldn't
> even try and read from memory if LPIs are not enabled.
>
I agree with this too, but that wasn't what my comment was targeting.
Thanks,
-Christoffer
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
