Re: [PATCH v5 3/6] LoongArch: KVM: Add cpucfg area for kvm hypervisor
On 2024/2/27 下午6:19, WANG Xuerui wrote: On 2/27/24 18:12, maobibo wrote: On 2024/2/27 下午5:10, WANG Xuerui wrote: On 2/27/24 11:14, maobibo wrote: On 2024/2/27 上午4:02, Jiaxun Yang wrote: 在2024年2月26日二月 上午8:04，maobibo写道： On 2024/2/26 下午2:12, Huacai Chen wrote: On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 10:04 AM maobibo wrote: On 2024/2/24 下午5:13, Huacai Chen wrote: Hi, Bibo, On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:28 AM Bibo Mao wrote: Instruction cpucfg can be used to get processor features. And there is trap exception when it is executed in VM mode, and also it is to provide cpu features to VM. On real hardware cpucfg area 0 - 20 is used. Here one specified area 0x4000 -- 0x40ff is used for KVM hypervisor to privide PV features, and the area can be extended for other hypervisors in future. This area will never be used for real HW, it is only used by software. After reading and thinking, I find that the hypercall method which is used in our productive kernel is better than this cpucfg method. Because hypercall is more simple and straightforward, plus we don't worry about conflicting with the real hardware. No, I do not think so. cpucfg is simper than hypercall, hypercall can be in effect when system runs in guest mode. In some scenario like TCG mode, hypercall is illegal intruction, however cpucfg can work. Nearly all architectures use hypercall except x86 for its historical Only x86 support multiple hypervisors and there is multiple hypervisor in x86 only. It is an advantage, not historical reason. I do believe that all those stuff should not be exposed to guest user space for security reasons. Can you add PLV checking when cpucfg 0x4000-0x40FF is emulated? if it is user mode return value is zero and it is kernel mode emulated value will be returned. It can avoid information leaking. I've suggested this approach in another reply [1], but I've rechecked the manual, and it turns out this behavior is not permitted by the current wording. See LoongArch Reference Manual v1.10, Volume 1, Section 2.2.10.5 "CPUCFG": > CPUCFG 访问未定义的配置字将读回全 0 值。 > > Reads of undefined CPUCFG configuration words shall return all-zeroes. This sentence mentions no distinction based on privilege modes, so it can only mean the behavior applies universally regardless of privilege modes. I think if you want to make CPUCFG behavior PLV-dependent, you may have to ask the LoongArch spec editors, internally or in public, for a new spec revision. No, CPUCFG behavior between CPUCFG0-CPUCFG21 is unchanged, only that it can be defined by software since CPUCFG 0x4 is used by software. The 0x4000 range is not mentioned in the manuals. I know you've confirmed privately with HW team but this needs to be properly documented for public projects to properly rely on. (There are already multiple third-party LoongArch implementers as of late 2023, so any ISA-level change like this would best be coordinated, to minimize surprises.) With document Vol 4-23 https://www.intel.com/content/dam/develop/external/us/en/documents/335592-sdm-vol-4.pdf There is one line "MSR address range between 4000H - 40FFH is marked as a specially reserved range. All existing and future processors will not implement any features using any MSR in this range." Thanks for providing this info, now at least we know why it's this specific range of 0x40XX that's chosen. It only says that it is reserved, it does not say detailed software behavior. Software behavior is defined in hypervisor such as: https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/Virtualization-Documentation/blob/main/tlfs/Requirements%20for%20Implementing%20the%20Microsoft%20Hypervisor%20Interface.pdf https://kb.vmware.com/s/article/1009458 If hypercall method is used, there should be ABI also like aarch64: https://documentation-service.arm.com/static/6013e5faeee5236980d08619 Yes proper documentation of public API surface is always necessary *before* doing real work. Because right now the hypercall provider is Linux KVM, maybe we can document the existing and planned hypercall usage and ABI in the kernel docs along with code changes. yes, I will add hypercall in kernel docs. SMC calling convention is ABI between OS and secure firmware, LoongArch has no secure mode, it not necessary to has such doc.The hypercall calling convention is relative with hypervisor SW, not relative with CPU HW vendor. Each hypervisor maybe has its separate hypercall calling convention just like syscall ABIs. Regards Bibo Mao
Re: [PATCH v5 3/6] LoongArch: KVM: Add cpucfg area for kvm hypervisor
Hi, Paolo, I'm very sorry to bother you, now we have a controversy about how to query hypervisor features (PV IPI, PV timer and maybe PV spinlock) on LoongArch, and we have two choices: 1, Get from CPUCFG registers; 2, Get from a hypercall. CPUCFG are unprivileged registers which can be read from user space, so the first method can unnecessarily leak information to userspace, but this method is more or less similar to x86's CPUID solution. Hypercall is of course a privileged method (so no info leak issues), and this method is used by ARM/ARM64 and most other architectures. Besides, LoongArch's CPUCFG is supposed to provide per-core features, while not all hypervisor features are per-core information (Of course PV IPI is, but others may be or may not be, while 'extioi' is obviously not). Bibo thinks that only CPUCFG has enough space to contain all hypervisor features (CSR and IOCSR are not enough). However it is obvious that we don't need any register space to hold these features, because they are held in the hypervisor's memory. The only information that needs register space is "whether I am in a VM" (in this case we really cannot use hypercall), but this feature is already in IOCSR (LOONGARCH_IOCSR_FEATURES). Now my question is: for a new architecture, which method is preferable, maintainable and extensible? Of course "they both OK" for the current purpose in this patch, but I think you can give us more useful information from a professor's view. More details are available in this thread, about the 3rd patch. Any suggestions are welcome. Huacai On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 6:19 PM WANG Xuerui wrote: > > On 2/27/24 18:12, maobibo wrote: > > > > > > On 2024/2/27 下午5:10, WANG Xuerui wrote: > >> On 2/27/24 11:14, maobibo wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2024/2/27 上午4:02, Jiaxun Yang wrote: > > > 在2024年2月26日二月 上午8:04，maobibo写道： > > On 2024/2/26 下午2:12, Huacai Chen wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 10:04 AM maobibo wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2024/2/24 下午5:13, Huacai Chen wrote: > Hi, Bibo, > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:28 AM Bibo Mao > wrote: > > > > Instruction cpucfg can be used to get processor features. And > > there > > is trap exception when it is executed in VM mode, and also it is > > to provide cpu features to VM. On real hardware cpucfg area 0 - 20 > > is used. Here one specified area 0x4000 -- 0x40ff is used > > for KVM hypervisor to privide PV features, and the area can be > > extended > > for other hypervisors in future. This area will never be used for > > real HW, it is only used by software. > After reading and thinking, I find that the hypercall method > which is > used in our productive kernel is better than this cpucfg method. > Because hypercall is more simple and straightforward, plus we don't > worry about conflicting with the real hardware. > >>> No, I do not think so. cpucfg is simper than hypercall, hypercall > >>> can > >>> be in effect when system runs in guest mode. In some scenario > >>> like TCG > >>> mode, hypercall is illegal intruction, however cpucfg can work. > >> Nearly all architectures use hypercall except x86 for its historical > > Only x86 support multiple hypervisors and there is multiple hypervisor > > in x86 only. It is an advantage, not historical reason. > > I do believe that all those stuff should not be exposed to guest > user space > for security reasons. > >>> Can you add PLV checking when cpucfg 0x4000-0x40FF is > >>> emulated? if it is user mode return value is zero and it is kernel > >>> mode emulated value will be returned. It can avoid information leaking. > >> > >> I've suggested this approach in another reply [1], but I've rechecked > >> the manual, and it turns out this behavior is not permitted by the > >> current wording. See LoongArch Reference Manual v1.10, Volume 1, > >> Section 2.2.10.5 "CPUCFG": > >> > >> > CPUCFG 访问未定义的配置字将读回全 0 值。 > >> > > >> > Reads of undefined CPUCFG configuration words shall return all-zeroes. > >> > >> This sentence mentions no distinction based on privilege modes, so it > >> can only mean the behavior applies universally regardless of privilege > >> modes. > >> > >> I think if you want to make CPUCFG behavior PLV-dependent, you may > >> have to ask the LoongArch spec editors, internally or in public, for a > >> new spec revision. > > No, CPUCFG behavior between CPUCFG0-CPUCFG21 is unchanged, only that it > > can be defined by software since CPUCFG 0x4 is used by software. > > The 0x4000 range is not mentioned in the manuals. I know you've > confirmed privately with HW team but this needs to be properly > documented for public projects to properly rely on. > > >> (There are already multiple third-party LoongArch implementers as of
Re: [PATCH v5 3/6] LoongArch: KVM: Add cpucfg area for kvm hypervisor
On 2/27/24 18:12, maobibo wrote: On 2024/2/27 下午5:10, WANG Xuerui wrote: On 2/27/24 11:14, maobibo wrote: On 2024/2/27 上午4:02, Jiaxun Yang wrote: 在2024年2月26日二月 上午8:04，maobibo写道： On 2024/2/26 下午2:12, Huacai Chen wrote: On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 10:04 AM maobibo wrote: On 2024/2/24 下午5:13, Huacai Chen wrote: Hi, Bibo, On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:28 AM Bibo Mao wrote: Instruction cpucfg can be used to get processor features. And there is trap exception when it is executed in VM mode, and also it is to provide cpu features to VM. On real hardware cpucfg area 0 - 20 is used. Here one specified area 0x4000 -- 0x40ff is used for KVM hypervisor to privide PV features, and the area can be extended for other hypervisors in future. This area will never be used for real HW, it is only used by software. After reading and thinking, I find that the hypercall method which is used in our productive kernel is better than this cpucfg method. Because hypercall is more simple and straightforward, plus we don't worry about conflicting with the real hardware. No, I do not think so. cpucfg is simper than hypercall, hypercall can be in effect when system runs in guest mode. In some scenario like TCG mode, hypercall is illegal intruction, however cpucfg can work. Nearly all architectures use hypercall except x86 for its historical Only x86 support multiple hypervisors and there is multiple hypervisor in x86 only. It is an advantage, not historical reason. I do believe that all those stuff should not be exposed to guest user space for security reasons. Can you add PLV checking when cpucfg 0x4000-0x40FF is emulated? if it is user mode return value is zero and it is kernel mode emulated value will be returned. It can avoid information leaking. I've suggested this approach in another reply [1], but I've rechecked the manual, and it turns out this behavior is not permitted by the current wording. See LoongArch Reference Manual v1.10, Volume 1, Section 2.2.10.5 "CPUCFG": > CPUCFG 访问未定义的配置字将读回全 0 值。 > > Reads of undefined CPUCFG configuration words shall return all-zeroes. This sentence mentions no distinction based on privilege modes, so it can only mean the behavior applies universally regardless of privilege modes. I think if you want to make CPUCFG behavior PLV-dependent, you may have to ask the LoongArch spec editors, internally or in public, for a new spec revision. No, CPUCFG behavior between CPUCFG0-CPUCFG21 is unchanged, only that it can be defined by software since CPUCFG 0x4 is used by software. The 0x4000 range is not mentioned in the manuals. I know you've confirmed privately with HW team but this needs to be properly documented for public projects to properly rely on. (There are already multiple third-party LoongArch implementers as of late 2023, so any ISA-level change like this would best be coordinated, to minimize surprises.) With document Vol 4-23 https://www.intel.com/content/dam/develop/external/us/en/documents/335592-sdm-vol-4.pdf There is one line "MSR address range between 4000H - 40FFH is marked as a specially reserved range. All existing and future processors will not implement any features using any MSR in this range." Thanks for providing this info, now at least we know why it's this specific range of 0x40XX that's chosen. It only says that it is reserved, it does not say detailed software behavior. Software behavior is defined in hypervisor such as: https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/Virtualization-Documentation/blob/main/tlfs/Requirements%20for%20Implementing%20the%20Microsoft%20Hypervisor%20Interface.pdf https://kb.vmware.com/s/article/1009458 If hypercall method is used, there should be ABI also like aarch64: https://documentation-service.arm.com/static/6013e5faeee5236980d08619 Yes proper documentation of public API surface is always necessary *before* doing real work. Because right now the hypercall provider is Linux KVM, maybe we can document the existing and planned hypercall usage and ABI in the kernel docs along with code changes. -- WANG "xen0n" Xuerui Linux/LoongArch mailing list: https://lore.kernel.org/loongarch/
Re: [PATCH v5 3/6] LoongArch: KVM: Add cpucfg area for kvm hypervisor
On 2024/2/27 下午5:10, WANG Xuerui wrote: On 2/27/24 11:14, maobibo wrote: On 2024/2/27 上午4:02, Jiaxun Yang wrote: 在2024年2月26日二月 上午8:04，maobibo写道： On 2024/2/26 下午2:12, Huacai Chen wrote: On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 10:04 AM maobibo wrote: On 2024/2/24 下午5:13, Huacai Chen wrote: Hi, Bibo, On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:28 AM Bibo Mao wrote: Instruction cpucfg can be used to get processor features. And there is trap exception when it is executed in VM mode, and also it is to provide cpu features to VM. On real hardware cpucfg area 0 - 20 is used. Here one specified area 0x4000 -- 0x40ff is used for KVM hypervisor to privide PV features, and the area can be extended for other hypervisors in future. This area will never be used for real HW, it is only used by software. After reading and thinking, I find that the hypercall method which is used in our productive kernel is better than this cpucfg method. Because hypercall is more simple and straightforward, plus we don't worry about conflicting with the real hardware. No, I do not think so. cpucfg is simper than hypercall, hypercall can be in effect when system runs in guest mode. In some scenario like TCG mode, hypercall is illegal intruction, however cpucfg can work. Nearly all architectures use hypercall except x86 for its historical Only x86 support multiple hypervisors and there is multiple hypervisor in x86 only. It is an advantage, not historical reason. I do believe that all those stuff should not be exposed to guest user space for security reasons. Can you add PLV checking when cpucfg 0x4000-0x40FF is emulated? if it is user mode return value is zero and it is kernel mode emulated value will be returned. It can avoid information leaking. I've suggested this approach in another reply [1], but I've rechecked the manual, and it turns out this behavior is not permitted by the current wording. See LoongArch Reference Manual v1.10, Volume 1, Section 2.2.10.5 "CPUCFG": > CPUCFG 访问未定义的配置字将读回全 0 值。 > > Reads of undefined CPUCFG configuration words shall return all-zeroes. This sentence mentions no distinction based on privilege modes, so it can only mean the behavior applies universally regardless of privilege modes. I think if you want to make CPUCFG behavior PLV-dependent, you may have to ask the LoongArch spec editors, internally or in public, for a new spec revision. No, CPUCFG behavior between CPUCFG0-CPUCFG21 is unchanged, only that it can be defined by software since CPUCFG 0x4 is used by software. > (There are already multiple third-party LoongArch implementers as of late 2023, so any ISA-level change like this would best be coordinated, to minimize surprises.) With document Vol 4-23 https://www.intel.com/content/dam/develop/external/us/en/documents/335592-sdm-vol-4.pdf There is one line "MSR address range between 4000H - 40FFH is marked as a specially reserved range. All existing and future processors will not implement any features using any MSR in this range." It only says that it is reserved, it does not say detailed software behavior. Software behavior is defined in hypervisor such as: https://github.com/MicrosoftDocs/Virtualization-Documentation/blob/main/tlfs/Requirements%20for%20Implementing%20the%20Microsoft%20Hypervisor%20Interface.pdf https://kb.vmware.com/s/article/1009458 If hypercall method is used, there should be ABI also like aarch64: https://documentation-service.arm.com/static/6013e5faeee5236980d08619 Regards Bibo Mao [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/loongarch/d8994f0f-d789-46d2-bc4d-f9b37fb39...@xen0n.name/
Re: [PATCH v5 3/6] LoongArch: KVM: Add cpucfg area for kvm hypervisor
On 2024/2/27 下午5:05, Xi Ruoyao wrote: On Tue, 2024-02-27 at 15:09 +0800, maobibo wrote: It is difficult to find an area unused by HW for CSR method since the small CSR ID range. We may use IOCSR instead. In kernel/cpu-probe.c there are already some IOCSR reads. yes, IOCSR can be used and one IOCSR area will be reserved for software. In general CSR/CPUCFG is to describe CPU features and IOCSR is to describe board/device features. CSR area is limited to 16K, it is difficult for HW guys to reserve special area for software usage. IOCSR/CPUCFG is possible however. Regards Bibo Mao It is difficult to find an area unused by HW for CSR method since the small CSR ID range. However it is easy for cpucfg. Here I doubt whether you really know about LoongArch LVZ. It's unfair to accuse the others for not knowing about LVZ considering the lack of public documentation.
Re: [PATCH v5 3/6] LoongArch: KVM: Add cpucfg area for kvm hypervisor
On 2/27/24 11:14, maobibo wrote: On 2024/2/27 上午4:02, Jiaxun Yang wrote: 在2024年2月26日二月 上午8:04，maobibo写道： On 2024/2/26 下午2:12, Huacai Chen wrote: On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 10:04 AM maobibo wrote: On 2024/2/24 下午5:13, Huacai Chen wrote: Hi, Bibo, On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:28 AM Bibo Mao wrote: Instruction cpucfg can be used to get processor features. And there is trap exception when it is executed in VM mode, and also it is to provide cpu features to VM. On real hardware cpucfg area 0 - 20 is used. Here one specified area 0x4000 -- 0x40ff is used for KVM hypervisor to privide PV features, and the area can be extended for other hypervisors in future. This area will never be used for real HW, it is only used by software. After reading and thinking, I find that the hypercall method which is used in our productive kernel is better than this cpucfg method. Because hypercall is more simple and straightforward, plus we don't worry about conflicting with the real hardware. No, I do not think so. cpucfg is simper than hypercall, hypercall can be in effect when system runs in guest mode. In some scenario like TCG mode, hypercall is illegal intruction, however cpucfg can work. Nearly all architectures use hypercall except x86 for its historical Only x86 support multiple hypervisors and there is multiple hypervisor in x86 only. It is an advantage, not historical reason. I do believe that all those stuff should not be exposed to guest user space for security reasons. Can you add PLV checking when cpucfg 0x4000-0x40FF is emulated? if it is user mode return value is zero and it is kernel mode emulated value will be returned. It can avoid information leaking. I've suggested this approach in another reply [1], but I've rechecked the manual, and it turns out this behavior is not permitted by the current wording. See LoongArch Reference Manual v1.10, Volume 1, Section 2.2.10.5 "CPUCFG": > CPUCFG 访问未定义的配置字将读回全 0 值。 > > Reads of undefined CPUCFG configuration words shall return all-zeroes. This sentence mentions no distinction based on privilege modes, so it can only mean the behavior applies universally regardless of privilege modes. I think if you want to make CPUCFG behavior PLV-dependent, you may have to ask the LoongArch spec editors, internally or in public, for a new spec revision. (There are already multiple third-party LoongArch implementers as of late 2023, so any ISA-level change like this would best be coordinated, to minimize surprises.) [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/loongarch/d8994f0f-d789-46d2-bc4d-f9b37fb39...@xen0n.name/ -- WANG "xen0n" Xuerui Linux/LoongArch mailing list: https://lore.kernel.org/loongarch/
Re: [PATCH v5 3/6] LoongArch: KVM: Add cpucfg area for kvm hypervisor
On Tue, 2024-02-27 at 15:09 +0800, maobibo wrote: > It is difficult to find an area unused by HW for CSR method since the > small CSR ID range. We may use IOCSR instead. In kernel/cpu-probe.c there are already some IOCSR reads. > It is difficult to find an area unused by HW for CSR method since the > small CSR ID range. However it is easy for cpucfg. Here I doubt whether > you really know about LoongArch LVZ. It's unfair to accuse the others for not knowing about LVZ considering the lack of public documentation. -- Xi Ruoyao School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University
Re: [PATCH v5 3/6] LoongArch: KVM: Add cpucfg area for kvm hypervisor
On 2024/2/27 下午1:23, Jiaxun Yang wrote: 在2024年2月27日二月 上午3:14，maobibo写道： On 2024/2/27 上午4:02, Jiaxun Yang wrote: 在2024年2月26日二月 上午8:04，maobibo写道： On 2024/2/26 下午2:12, Huacai Chen wrote: On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 10:04 AM maobibo wrote: On 2024/2/24 下午5:13, Huacai Chen wrote: Hi, Bibo, On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:28 AM Bibo Mao wrote: Instruction cpucfg can be used to get processor features. And there is trap exception when it is executed in VM mode, and also it is to provide cpu features to VM. On real hardware cpucfg area 0 - 20 is used. Here one specified area 0x4000 -- 0x40ff is used for KVM hypervisor to privide PV features, and the area can be extended for other hypervisors in future. This area will never be used for real HW, it is only used by software. After reading and thinking, I find that the hypercall method which is used in our productive kernel is better than this cpucfg method. Because hypercall is more simple and straightforward, plus we don't worry about conflicting with the real hardware. No, I do not think so. cpucfg is simper than hypercall, hypercall can be in effect when system runs in guest mode. In some scenario like TCG mode, hypercall is illegal intruction, however cpucfg can work. Nearly all architectures use hypercall except x86 for its historical Only x86 support multiple hypervisors and there is multiple hypervisor in x86 only. It is an advantage, not historical reason. I do believe that all those stuff should not be exposed to guest user space for security reasons. Can you add PLV checking when cpucfg 0x4000-0x40FF is emulated? if it is user mode return value is zero and it is kernel mode emulated value will be returned. It can avoid information leaking. Please don’t do insane stuff here, applications are not expecting exception from cpucfg. Sorry, I do not understand. Can you describe the behavior about cpucfg instruction from applications? Why is there no exception for cpucfg. Also for different implementations of hypervisors they may have different PV features behavior, using hypcall to perform feature detection can pass more information to help us cope with hypervisor diversity. How do different hypervisors can be detected firstly? On x86 MSR is used for all hypervisors detection and on ARM64 hyperv used acpi_gbl_FADT and kvm use smc forcely, host mode can execute smc instruction without exception on ARM64. That’s hypcall ABI design choices, those information can come from firmware or privileged CSRs on LoongArch. Firstly the firmware or privileged CSRs is not relative with hypcall ABI design choices. With CSR instruction, CSR ID is encoded in CSR instruction, range about CSR ID is 16K; for cpucfg instruction, cpucfg area is passed with register, range is UINT_MAX at least. It is difficult to find an area unused by HW for CSR method since the small CSR ID range. However it is easy for cpucfg. Here I doubt whether you really know about LoongArch LVZ. I do not know why hypercall is better than cpucfg on LoongArch, cpucfg is basic intruction however hypercall is not, it is part of LVZ feature. KVM can only work with LVZ right? Linux kernel need boot well with TCG and KVM mode, hypercall is illegal instruction with TCG mode. Regards Bibo Mao reasons. If we use CPUCFG, then the hypervisor information is unnecessarily leaked to userspace, and this may be a security issue. Meanwhile, I don't think TCG mode needs PV features. Besides PV features, there is other features different with real hw such as virtio device, virtual interrupt controller. Those are *device* level information, they must be passed in firmware interfaces to keep processor emulation sane. File arch/x86/hyperv/hv_apic.c can be referenced, apic features comes from ms_hyperv.hints and HYPERV_CPUID_ENLIGHTMENT_INFO cpuid info, not must be passed by firmware interface. That’s not KVM, that’s Hyper V. At Linux Kernel we enjoy the benefits of better modularity on device abstractions, please don’t break it. Thanks Regards Bibo Mao Thanks Regards Bibo Mao I consulted with Jiaxun before, and maybe he can give some more comments. Extioi virtualization extension will be added later, cpucfg can be used to get extioi features. It is unlikely that extioi driver depends on PARA_VIRT macro if hypercall is used to get features. CPUCFG is per-core information, if we really need something about extioi, it should be in iocsr (LOONGARCH_IOCSR_FEATURES). Huacai Regards Bibo Mao Huacai Signed-off-by: Bibo Mao --- arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h | 1 + arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h | 10 ++ arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c | 46 +- 3 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h index d8f637f9e400..ad120f924905 100644 --- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h +++
Re: [PATCH v5 3/6] LoongArch: KVM: Add cpucfg area for kvm hypervisor
在2024年2月27日二月 上午3:14，maobibo写道：
> On 2024/2/27 上午4:02, Jiaxun Yang wrote:
>>
>>
>> 在2024年2月26日二月 上午8:04，maobibo写道：
>>> On 2024/2/26 下午2:12, Huacai Chen wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 10:04 AM maobibo wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2024/2/24 下午5:13, Huacai Chen wrote:
>> Hi, Bibo,
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:28 AM Bibo Mao wrote:
>>>
>>> Instruction cpucfg can be used to get processor features. And there
>>> is trap exception when it is executed in VM mode, and also it is
>>> to provide cpu features to VM. On real hardware cpucfg area 0 - 20
>>> is used. Here one specified area 0x4000 -- 0x40ff is used
>>> for KVM hypervisor to privide PV features, and the area can be extended
>>> for other hypervisors in future. This area will never be used for
>>> real HW, it is only used by software.
>> After reading and thinking, I find that the hypercall method which is
>> used in our productive kernel is better than this cpucfg method.
>> Because hypercall is more simple and straightforward, plus we don't
>> worry about conflicting with the real hardware.
> No, I do not think so. cpucfg is simper than hypercall, hypercall can
> be in effect when system runs in guest mode. In some scenario like TCG
> mode, hypercall is illegal intruction, however cpucfg can work.
Nearly all architectures use hypercall except x86 for its historical
>>> Only x86 support multiple hypervisors and there is multiple hypervisor
>>> in x86 only. It is an advantage, not historical reason.
>>
>> I do believe that all those stuff should not be exposed to guest user space
>> for security reasons.
> Can you add PLV checking when cpucfg 0x4000-0x40FF is emulated?
> if it is user mode return value is zero and it is kernel mode emulated
> value will be returned. It can avoid information leaking.
Please don’t do insane stuff here, applications are not expecting exception from
cpucfg.
>
>>
>> Also for different implementations of hypervisors they may have different
>> PV features behavior, using hypcall to perform feature detection
>> can pass more information to help us cope with hypervisor diversity.
> How do different hypervisors can be detected firstly? On x86 MSR is
> used for all hypervisors detection and on ARM64 hyperv used
> acpi_gbl_FADT and kvm use smc forcely, host mode can execute smc
> instruction without exception on ARM64.
That’s hypcall ABI design choices, those information can come from firmware
or privileged CSRs on LoongArch.
>
> I do not know why hypercall is better than cpucfg on LoongArch, cpucfg
> is basic intruction however hypercall is not, it is part of LVZ feature.
KVM can only work with LVZ right?
>
>>>
reasons. If we use CPUCFG, then the hypervisor information is
unnecessarily leaked to userspace, and this may be a security issue.
Meanwhile, I don't think TCG mode needs PV features.
>>> Besides PV features, there is other features different with real hw such
>>> as virtio device, virtual interrupt controller.
>>
>> Those are *device* level information, they must be passed in firmware
>> interfaces to keep processor emulation sane.
> File arch/x86/hyperv/hv_apic.c can be referenced, apic features comes
> from ms_hyperv.hints and HYPERV_CPUID_ENLIGHTMENT_INFO cpuid info, not
> must be passed by firmware interface.
That’s not KVM, that’s Hyper V. At Linux Kernel we enjoy the benefits of better
modularity on device abstractions, please don’t break it.
Thanks
>
> Regards
> Bibo Mao
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Bibo Mao
>>>
I consulted with Jiaxun before, and maybe he can give some more comments.
>
> Extioi virtualization extension will be added later, cpucfg can be used
> to get extioi features. It is unlikely that extioi driver depends on
> PARA_VIRT macro if hypercall is used to get features.
CPUCFG is per-core information, if we really need something about
extioi, it should be in iocsr (LOONGARCH_IOCSR_FEATURES).
Huacai
>
> Regards
> Bibo Mao
>
>>
>> Huacai
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Bibo Mao
>>> ---
>>> arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h | 1 +
>>> arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h | 10 ++
>>> arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c | 46
>>> +-
>>> 3 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h
>>> b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h
>>> index d8f637f9e400..ad120f924905 100644
>>> --- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h
>>> +++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h
>>> @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ enum reg2_op {
>>>revhd_op= 0x11,
>>>extwh_op= 0x16,
>>>extwb_op= 0x17,
>>> + cpucfg_op = 0x1b,
>>>iocsrrdb_op = 0x19200,
Re: [PATCH v5 3/6] LoongArch: KVM: Add cpucfg area for kvm hypervisor
On 2024/2/27 上午4:02, Jiaxun Yang wrote:
在2024年2月26日二月 上午8:04，maobibo写道：
On 2024/2/26 下午2:12, Huacai Chen wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 10:04 AM maobibo wrote:
On 2024/2/24 下午5:13, Huacai Chen wrote:
Hi, Bibo,
On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:28 AM Bibo Mao wrote:
Instruction cpucfg can be used to get processor features. And there
is trap exception when it is executed in VM mode, and also it is
to provide cpu features to VM. On real hardware cpucfg area 0 - 20
is used. Here one specified area 0x4000 -- 0x40ff is used
for KVM hypervisor to privide PV features, and the area can be extended
for other hypervisors in future. This area will never be used for
real HW, it is only used by software.
After reading and thinking, I find that the hypercall method which is
used in our productive kernel is better than this cpucfg method.
Because hypercall is more simple and straightforward, plus we don't
worry about conflicting with the real hardware.
No, I do not think so. cpucfg is simper than hypercall, hypercall can
be in effect when system runs in guest mode. In some scenario like TCG
mode, hypercall is illegal intruction, however cpucfg can work.
Nearly all architectures use hypercall except x86 for its historical
Only x86 support multiple hypervisors and there is multiple hypervisor
in x86 only. It is an advantage, not historical reason.
I do believe that all those stuff should not be exposed to guest user space
for security reasons.
Can you add PLV checking when cpucfg 0x4000-0x40FF is emulated?
if it is user mode return value is zero and it is kernel mode emulated
value will be returned. It can avoid information leaking.
Also for different implementations of hypervisors they may have different
PV features behavior, using hypcall to perform feature detection
can pass more information to help us cope with hypervisor diversity.
How do different hypervisors can be detected firstly? On x86 MSR is
used for all hypervisors detection and on ARM64 hyperv used
acpi_gbl_FADT and kvm use smc forcely, host mode can execute smc
instruction without exception on ARM64.
I do not know why hypercall is better than cpucfg on LoongArch, cpucfg
is basic intruction however hypercall is not, it is part of LVZ feature.
reasons. If we use CPUCFG, then the hypervisor information is
unnecessarily leaked to userspace, and this may be a security issue.
Meanwhile, I don't think TCG mode needs PV features.
Besides PV features, there is other features different with real hw such
as virtio device, virtual interrupt controller.
Those are *device* level information, they must be passed in firmware
interfaces to keep processor emulation sane.
File arch/x86/hyperv/hv_apic.c can be referenced, apic features comes
from ms_hyperv.hints and HYPERV_CPUID_ENLIGHTMENT_INFO cpuid info, not
must be passed by firmware interface.
Regards
Bibo Mao
Thanks
Regards
Bibo Mao
I consulted with Jiaxun before, and maybe he can give some more comments.
Extioi virtualization extension will be added later, cpucfg can be used
to get extioi features. It is unlikely that extioi driver depends on
PARA_VIRT macro if hypercall is used to get features.
CPUCFG is per-core information, if we really need something about
extioi, it should be in iocsr (LOONGARCH_IOCSR_FEATURES).
Huacai
Regards
Bibo Mao
Huacai
Signed-off-by: Bibo Mao
---
arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h | 1 +
arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h | 10 ++
arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c | 46 +-
3 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h
b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h
index d8f637f9e400..ad120f924905 100644
--- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h
+++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h
@@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ enum reg2_op {
revhd_op= 0x11,
extwh_op= 0x16,
extwb_op= 0x17,
+ cpucfg_op = 0x1b,
iocsrrdb_op = 0x19200,
iocsrrdh_op = 0x19201,
iocsrrdw_op = 0x19202,
diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h
b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h
index 46366e783c84..a1d22e8b6f94 100644
--- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h
+++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h
@@ -158,6 +158,16 @@
#define CPUCFG48_VFPU_CG BIT(2)
#define CPUCFG48_RAM_CG BIT(3)
+/*
+ * cpucfg index area: 0x4000 -- 0x40ff
+ * SW emulation for KVM hypervirsor
+ */
+#define CPUCFG_KVM_BASE0x4000UL
+#define CPUCFG_KVM_SIZE0x100
+#define CPUCFG_KVM_SIG CPUCFG_KVM_BASE
+#define KVM_SIGNATURE "KVM\0"
+#define CPUCFG_KVM_FEATURE (CPUCFG_KVM_BASE + 4)
+
#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
/* CSR */
diff --git a/arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c b/arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c
index 923bbca9bd22..6a38fd59d86d 100644
Re: [PATCH v5 3/6] LoongArch: KVM: Add cpucfg area for kvm hypervisor
在2024年2月26日二月 上午8:04，maobibo写道：
> On 2024/2/26 下午2:12, Huacai Chen wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 10:04 AM maobibo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2024/2/24 下午5:13, Huacai Chen wrote:
Hi, Bibo,
On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:28 AM Bibo Mao wrote:
>
> Instruction cpucfg can be used to get processor features. And there
> is trap exception when it is executed in VM mode, and also it is
> to provide cpu features to VM. On real hardware cpucfg area 0 - 20
> is used. Here one specified area 0x4000 -- 0x40ff is used
> for KVM hypervisor to privide PV features, and the area can be extended
> for other hypervisors in future. This area will never be used for
> real HW, it is only used by software.
After reading and thinking, I find that the hypercall method which is
used in our productive kernel is better than this cpucfg method.
Because hypercall is more simple and straightforward, plus we don't
worry about conflicting with the real hardware.
>>> No, I do not think so. cpucfg is simper than hypercall, hypercall can
>>> be in effect when system runs in guest mode. In some scenario like TCG
>>> mode, hypercall is illegal intruction, however cpucfg can work.
>> Nearly all architectures use hypercall except x86 for its historical
> Only x86 support multiple hypervisors and there is multiple hypervisor
> in x86 only. It is an advantage, not historical reason.
I do believe that all those stuff should not be exposed to guest user space
for security reasons.
Also for different implementations of hypervisors they may have different
PV features behavior, using hypcall to perform feature detection
can pass more information to help us cope with hypervisor diversity.
>
>> reasons. If we use CPUCFG, then the hypervisor information is
>> unnecessarily leaked to userspace, and this may be a security issue.
>> Meanwhile, I don't think TCG mode needs PV features.
> Besides PV features, there is other features different with real hw such
> as virtio device, virtual interrupt controller.
Those are *device* level information, they must be passed in firmware
interfaces to keep processor emulation sane.
Thanks
>
> Regards
> Bibo Mao
>
>>
>> I consulted with Jiaxun before, and maybe he can give some more comments.
>>
>>>
>>> Extioi virtualization extension will be added later, cpucfg can be used
>>> to get extioi features. It is unlikely that extioi driver depends on
>>> PARA_VIRT macro if hypercall is used to get features.
>> CPUCFG is per-core information, if we really need something about
>> extioi, it should be in iocsr (LOONGARCH_IOCSR_FEATURES).
>>
>>
>> Huacai
>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Bibo Mao
>>>
Huacai
>
> Signed-off-by: Bibo Mao
> ---
>arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h | 1 +
>arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h | 10 ++
>arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c | 46 +-
>3 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h
> b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h
> index d8f637f9e400..ad120f924905 100644
> --- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h
> +++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h
> @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ enum reg2_op {
> revhd_op= 0x11,
> extwh_op= 0x16,
> extwb_op= 0x17,
> + cpucfg_op = 0x1b,
> iocsrrdb_op = 0x19200,
> iocsrrdh_op = 0x19201,
> iocsrrdw_op = 0x19202,
> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h
> b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h
> index 46366e783c84..a1d22e8b6f94 100644
> --- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h
> +++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h
> @@ -158,6 +158,16 @@
>#define CPUCFG48_VFPU_CG BIT(2)
>#define CPUCFG48_RAM_CG BIT(3)
>
> +/*
> + * cpucfg index area: 0x4000 -- 0x40ff
> + * SW emulation for KVM hypervirsor
> + */
> +#define CPUCFG_KVM_BASE0x4000UL
> +#define CPUCFG_KVM_SIZE0x100
> +#define CPUCFG_KVM_SIG CPUCFG_KVM_BASE
> +#define KVM_SIGNATURE "KVM\0"
> +#define CPUCFG_KVM_FEATURE (CPUCFG_KVM_BASE + 4)
> +
>#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>
>/* CSR */
> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c b/arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c
> index 923bbca9bd22..6a38fd59d86d 100644
> --- a/arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c
> +++ b/arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c
> @@ -206,10 +206,37 @@ int kvm_emu_idle(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> return EMULATE_DONE;
>}
>
> -static int kvm_trap_handle_gspr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +static int kvm_emu_cpucfg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, larch_inst inst)
>{
> int rd, rj;
> unsigned
Re: [PATCH v5 3/6] LoongArch: KVM: Add cpucfg area for kvm hypervisor
On 2/26/24 16:00, maobibo wrote: On 2024/2/26 下午1:25, WANG Xuerui wrote: Hi, On 2/26/24 10:04, maobibo wrote: On 2024/2/24 下午5:13, Huacai Chen wrote: Hi, Bibo, On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:28 AM Bibo Mao wrote: Instruction cpucfg can be used to get processor features. And there is trap exception when it is executed in VM mode, and also it is to provide cpu features to VM. On real hardware cpucfg area 0 - 20 is used. Here one specified area 0x4000 -- 0x40ff is used for KVM hypervisor to privide PV features, and the area can be extended for other hypervisors in future. This area will never be used for real HW, it is only used by software. After reading and thinking, I find that the hypercall method which is used in our productive kernel is better than this cpucfg method. Because hypercall is more simple and straightforward, plus we don't worry about conflicting with the real hardware. No, I do not think so. cpucfg is simper than hypercall, hypercall can be in effect when system runs in guest mode. In some scenario like TCG mode, hypercall is illegal intruction, however cpucfg can work. While the CPUCFG instruction is universally available, it's also unprivileged, so any additional CPUCFG behavior also automatically becomes UAPI, which likely isn't what you expect. Hypervisor implementation details shouldn't be leaked to userland because it has no reason to care -- even though userland learns about the capabilities, it cannot actually access the resources, because relevant CSRs and/or instructions are privileged. Worse, the unnecessary exposure of information could be a problem security-wise. cpucfg is read-only and used to represent current hw cpu features, why do you think there is security issue? Is there security issue about cpucfg2 and cpucfg6 since it can be accessed in user space also? PMU feature is defined in cpucfg6, PMU driver is written in kernel mode. These CPUCFG leaves were added before existence of LoongArch were publicized, without community review. If early drafts of the manual were available to community reviewers, at least I would strongly NAK it. A possible way to preserve the unprivileged CPUCFG behavior would be acting differently based on guest CSR.CRMD.PLV: only returning data for the new configuration space when guest is not in PLV3. But this behavior isn't explicitly allowed nor disallowed in the LoongArch manuals, and is in my opinion unnecessarily complex. And regarding the lack of hypcall support from QEMU system mode emulation on TCG, I'd argue it's simply a matter of adding support in target/loongarch64. This would be attractive because it will enable easy development and testing of hypervisor software with QEMU -- both locally and in CI. Hypercall is part of hardware assisted virtualization LVZ, do you think only adding hypercall instruction withou LVZ is possible? I cannot comment on the actual feasibility of doing so, because I don't have access to the LVZ manuals which *still* isn't publicly available. But from my intuition it should be a more-or-less trivial processor mode transition like with syscall -- whether that's indeed the case I can't (dis)prove. Extioi virtualization extension will be added later, cpucfg can be used to get extioi features. It is unlikely that extioi driver depends on PARA_VIRT macro if hypercall is used to get features. And the EXTIOI feature too isn't something usable from unprivileged code, so I don't think it will affect the conclusions above. Sorry, I do not know what do you mean. I was just saying this example provided no additional information at least for me -- while it's appreciated that you informed the community of your intended future use case, like what I stated in the first paragraph in my reply, it looked essentially the same because both PV and EXTIOI are privileged things. -- WANG "xen0n" Xuerui Linux/LoongArch mailing list: https://lore.kernel.org/loongarch/
Re: [PATCH v5 3/6] LoongArch: KVM: Add cpucfg area for kvm hypervisor
On 2024/2/26 下午2:12, Huacai Chen wrote:
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 10:04 AM maobibo wrote:
On 2024/2/24 下午5:13, Huacai Chen wrote:
Hi, Bibo,
On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:28 AM Bibo Mao wrote:
Instruction cpucfg can be used to get processor features. And there
is trap exception when it is executed in VM mode, and also it is
to provide cpu features to VM. On real hardware cpucfg area 0 - 20
is used. Here one specified area 0x4000 -- 0x40ff is used
for KVM hypervisor to privide PV features, and the area can be extended
for other hypervisors in future. This area will never be used for
real HW, it is only used by software.
After reading and thinking, I find that the hypercall method which is
used in our productive kernel is better than this cpucfg method.
Because hypercall is more simple and straightforward, plus we don't
worry about conflicting with the real hardware.
No, I do not think so. cpucfg is simper than hypercall, hypercall can
be in effect when system runs in guest mode. In some scenario like TCG
mode, hypercall is illegal intruction, however cpucfg can work.
Nearly all architectures use hypercall except x86 for its historical
Only x86 support multiple hypervisors and there is multiple hypervisor
in x86 only. It is an advantage, not historical reason.
reasons. If we use CPUCFG, then the hypervisor information is
unnecessarily leaked to userspace, and this may be a security issue.
Meanwhile, I don't think TCG mode needs PV features.
Besides PV features, there is other features different with real hw such
as virtio device, virtual interrupt controller.
Regards
Bibo Mao
I consulted with Jiaxun before, and maybe he can give some more comments.
Extioi virtualization extension will be added later, cpucfg can be used
to get extioi features. It is unlikely that extioi driver depends on
PARA_VIRT macro if hypercall is used to get features.
CPUCFG is per-core information, if we really need something about
extioi, it should be in iocsr (LOONGARCH_IOCSR_FEATURES).
Huacai
Regards
Bibo Mao
Huacai
Signed-off-by: Bibo Mao
---
arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h | 1 +
arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h | 10 ++
arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c | 46 +-
3 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h
b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h
index d8f637f9e400..ad120f924905 100644
--- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h
+++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h
@@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ enum reg2_op {
revhd_op= 0x11,
extwh_op= 0x16,
extwb_op= 0x17,
+ cpucfg_op = 0x1b,
iocsrrdb_op = 0x19200,
iocsrrdh_op = 0x19201,
iocsrrdw_op = 0x19202,
diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h
b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h
index 46366e783c84..a1d22e8b6f94 100644
--- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h
+++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h
@@ -158,6 +158,16 @@
#define CPUCFG48_VFPU_CG BIT(2)
#define CPUCFG48_RAM_CG BIT(3)
+/*
+ * cpucfg index area: 0x4000 -- 0x40ff
+ * SW emulation for KVM hypervirsor
+ */
+#define CPUCFG_KVM_BASE0x4000UL
+#define CPUCFG_KVM_SIZE0x100
+#define CPUCFG_KVM_SIG CPUCFG_KVM_BASE
+#define KVM_SIGNATURE "KVM\0"
+#define CPUCFG_KVM_FEATURE (CPUCFG_KVM_BASE + 4)
+
#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
/* CSR */
diff --git a/arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c b/arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c
index 923bbca9bd22..6a38fd59d86d 100644
--- a/arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c
+++ b/arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c
@@ -206,10 +206,37 @@ int kvm_emu_idle(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
return EMULATE_DONE;
}
-static int kvm_trap_handle_gspr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+static int kvm_emu_cpucfg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, larch_inst inst)
{
int rd, rj;
unsigned int index;
+
+ rd = inst.reg2_format.rd;
+ rj = inst.reg2_format.rj;
+ ++vcpu->stat.cpucfg_exits;
+ index = vcpu->arch.gprs[rj];
+
+ /*
+* By LoongArch Reference Manual 2.2.10.5
+* Return value is 0 for undefined cpucfg index
+*/
+ switch (index) {
+ case 0 ... (KVM_MAX_CPUCFG_REGS - 1):
+ vcpu->arch.gprs[rd] = vcpu->arch.cpucfg[index];
+ break;
+ case CPUCFG_KVM_SIG:
+ vcpu->arch.gprs[rd] = *(unsigned int *)KVM_SIGNATURE;
+ break;
+ default:
+ vcpu->arch.gprs[rd] = 0;
+ break;
+ }
+
+ return EMULATE_DONE;
+}
+
+static int kvm_trap_handle_gspr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+{
unsigned long curr_pc;
larch_inst inst;
enum emulation_result er = EMULATE_DONE;
@@ -224,21 +251,8 @@ static int kvm_trap_handle_gspr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
er = EMULATE_FAIL;
switch
Re: [PATCH v5 3/6] LoongArch: KVM: Add cpucfg area for kvm hypervisor
On 2024/2/26 下午1:25, WANG Xuerui wrote: Hi, On 2/26/24 10:04, maobibo wrote: On 2024/2/24 下午5:13, Huacai Chen wrote: Hi, Bibo, On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:28 AM Bibo Mao wrote: Instruction cpucfg can be used to get processor features. And there is trap exception when it is executed in VM mode, and also it is to provide cpu features to VM. On real hardware cpucfg area 0 - 20 is used. Here one specified area 0x4000 -- 0x40ff is used for KVM hypervisor to privide PV features, and the area can be extended for other hypervisors in future. This area will never be used for real HW, it is only used by software. After reading and thinking, I find that the hypercall method which is used in our productive kernel is better than this cpucfg method. Because hypercall is more simple and straightforward, plus we don't worry about conflicting with the real hardware. No, I do not think so. cpucfg is simper than hypercall, hypercall can be in effect when system runs in guest mode. In some scenario like TCG mode, hypercall is illegal intruction, however cpucfg can work. While the CPUCFG instruction is universally available, it's also unprivileged, so any additional CPUCFG behavior also automatically becomes UAPI, which likely isn't what you expect. Hypervisor implementation details shouldn't be leaked to userland because it has no reason to care -- even though userland learns about the capabilities, it cannot actually access the resources, because relevant CSRs and/or instructions are privileged. Worse, the unnecessary exposure of information could be a problem security-wise. cpucfg is read-only and used to represent current hw cpu features, why do you think there is security issue? Is there security issue about cpucfg2 and cpucfg6 since it can be accessed in user space also? PMU feature is defined in cpucfg6, PMU driver is written in kernel mode. A possible way to preserve the unprivileged CPUCFG behavior would be acting differently based on guest CSR.CRMD.PLV: only returning data for the new configuration space when guest is not in PLV3. But this behavior isn't explicitly allowed nor disallowed in the LoongArch manuals, and is in my opinion unnecessarily complex. And regarding the lack of hypcall support from QEMU system mode emulation on TCG, I'd argue it's simply a matter of adding support in target/loongarch64. This would be attractive because it will enable easy development and testing of hypervisor software with QEMU -- both locally and in CI. Hypercall is part of hardware assisted virtualization LVZ, do you think only adding hypercall instruction withou LVZ is possible? Extioi virtualization extension will be added later, cpucfg can be used to get extioi features. It is unlikely that extioi driver depends on PARA_VIRT macro if hypercall is used to get features. And the EXTIOI feature too isn't something usable from unprivileged code, so I don't think it will affect the conclusions above. Sorry, I do not know what do you mean. Regards Bibo Mao
Re: [PATCH v5 3/6] LoongArch: KVM: Add cpucfg area for kvm hypervisor
On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 10:04 AM maobibo wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2024/2/24 下午5:13, Huacai Chen wrote:
> > Hi, Bibo,
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:28 AM Bibo Mao wrote:
> >>
> >> Instruction cpucfg can be used to get processor features. And there
> >> is trap exception when it is executed in VM mode, and also it is
> >> to provide cpu features to VM. On real hardware cpucfg area 0 - 20
> >> is used. Here one specified area 0x4000 -- 0x40ff is used
> >> for KVM hypervisor to privide PV features, and the area can be extended
> >> for other hypervisors in future. This area will never be used for
> >> real HW, it is only used by software.
> > After reading and thinking, I find that the hypercall method which is
> > used in our productive kernel is better than this cpucfg method.
> > Because hypercall is more simple and straightforward, plus we don't
> > worry about conflicting with the real hardware.
> No, I do not think so. cpucfg is simper than hypercall, hypercall can
> be in effect when system runs in guest mode. In some scenario like TCG
> mode, hypercall is illegal intruction, however cpucfg can work.
Nearly all architectures use hypercall except x86 for its historical
reasons. If we use CPUCFG, then the hypervisor information is
unnecessarily leaked to userspace, and this may be a security issue.
Meanwhile, I don't think TCG mode needs PV features.
I consulted with Jiaxun before, and maybe he can give some more comments.
>
> Extioi virtualization extension will be added later, cpucfg can be used
> to get extioi features. It is unlikely that extioi driver depends on
> PARA_VIRT macro if hypercall is used to get features.
CPUCFG is per-core information, if we really need something about
extioi, it should be in iocsr (LOONGARCH_IOCSR_FEATURES).
Huacai
>
> Regards
> Bibo Mao
>
> >
> > Huacai
> >
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Bibo Mao
> >> ---
> >> arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h | 1 +
> >> arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h | 10 ++
> >> arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c | 46 +-
> >> 3 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h
> >> b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h
> >> index d8f637f9e400..ad120f924905 100644
> >> --- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h
> >> +++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h
> >> @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ enum reg2_op {
> >> revhd_op= 0x11,
> >> extwh_op= 0x16,
> >> extwb_op= 0x17,
> >> + cpucfg_op = 0x1b,
> >> iocsrrdb_op = 0x19200,
> >> iocsrrdh_op = 0x19201,
> >> iocsrrdw_op = 0x19202,
> >> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h
> >> b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h
> >> index 46366e783c84..a1d22e8b6f94 100644
> >> --- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h
> >> +++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h
> >> @@ -158,6 +158,16 @@
> >> #define CPUCFG48_VFPU_CG BIT(2)
> >> #define CPUCFG48_RAM_CG BIT(3)
> >>
> >> +/*
> >> + * cpucfg index area: 0x4000 -- 0x40ff
> >> + * SW emulation for KVM hypervirsor
> >> + */
> >> +#define CPUCFG_KVM_BASE0x4000UL
> >> +#define CPUCFG_KVM_SIZE0x100
> >> +#define CPUCFG_KVM_SIG CPUCFG_KVM_BASE
> >> +#define KVM_SIGNATURE "KVM\0"
> >> +#define CPUCFG_KVM_FEATURE (CPUCFG_KVM_BASE + 4)
> >> +
> >> #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
> >>
> >> /* CSR */
> >> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c b/arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c
> >> index 923bbca9bd22..6a38fd59d86d 100644
> >> --- a/arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c
> >> +++ b/arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c
> >> @@ -206,10 +206,37 @@ int kvm_emu_idle(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >> return EMULATE_DONE;
> >> }
> >>
> >> -static int kvm_trap_handle_gspr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >> +static int kvm_emu_cpucfg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, larch_inst inst)
> >> {
> >> int rd, rj;
> >> unsigned int index;
> >> +
> >> + rd = inst.reg2_format.rd;
> >> + rj = inst.reg2_format.rj;
> >> + ++vcpu->stat.cpucfg_exits;
> >> + index = vcpu->arch.gprs[rj];
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> +* By LoongArch Reference Manual 2.2.10.5
> >> +* Return value is 0 for undefined cpucfg index
> >> +*/
> >> + switch (index) {
> >> + case 0 ... (KVM_MAX_CPUCFG_REGS - 1):
> >> + vcpu->arch.gprs[rd] = vcpu->arch.cpucfg[index];
> >> + break;
> >> + case CPUCFG_KVM_SIG:
> >> + vcpu->arch.gprs[rd] = *(unsigned int *)KVM_SIGNATURE;
> >> + break;
> >> + default:
> >> + vcpu->arch.gprs[rd] = 0;
> >> + break;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + return EMULATE_DONE;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static int kvm_trap_handle_gspr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >> +{
> >> unsigned long curr_pc;
> >> larch_inst inst;
> >>
Re: [PATCH v5 3/6] LoongArch: KVM: Add cpucfg area for kvm hypervisor
Hi, On 2/26/24 10:04, maobibo wrote: On 2024/2/24 下午5:13, Huacai Chen wrote: Hi, Bibo, On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:28 AM Bibo Mao wrote: Instruction cpucfg can be used to get processor features. And there is trap exception when it is executed in VM mode, and also it is to provide cpu features to VM. On real hardware cpucfg area 0 - 20 is used. Here one specified area 0x4000 -- 0x40ff is used for KVM hypervisor to privide PV features, and the area can be extended for other hypervisors in future. This area will never be used for real HW, it is only used by software. After reading and thinking, I find that the hypercall method which is used in our productive kernel is better than this cpucfg method. Because hypercall is more simple and straightforward, plus we don't worry about conflicting with the real hardware. No, I do not think so. cpucfg is simper than hypercall, hypercall can be in effect when system runs in guest mode. In some scenario like TCG mode, hypercall is illegal intruction, however cpucfg can work. While the CPUCFG instruction is universally available, it's also unprivileged, so any additional CPUCFG behavior also automatically becomes UAPI, which likely isn't what you expect. Hypervisor implementation details shouldn't be leaked to userland because it has no reason to care -- even though userland learns about the capabilities, it cannot actually access the resources, because relevant CSRs and/or instructions are privileged. Worse, the unnecessary exposure of information could be a problem security-wise. A possible way to preserve the unprivileged CPUCFG behavior would be acting differently based on guest CSR.CRMD.PLV: only returning data for the new configuration space when guest is not in PLV3. But this behavior isn't explicitly allowed nor disallowed in the LoongArch manuals, and is in my opinion unnecessarily complex. And regarding the lack of hypcall support from QEMU system mode emulation on TCG, I'd argue it's simply a matter of adding support in target/loongarch64. This would be attractive because it will enable easy development and testing of hypervisor software with QEMU -- both locally and in CI. Extioi virtualization extension will be added later, cpucfg can be used to get extioi features. It is unlikely that extioi driver depends on PARA_VIRT macro if hypercall is used to get features. And the EXTIOI feature too isn't something usable from unprivileged code, so I don't think it will affect the conclusions above. -- WANG "xen0n" Xuerui Linux/LoongArch mailing list: https://lore.kernel.org/loongarch/
Re: [PATCH v5 3/6] LoongArch: KVM: Add cpucfg area for kvm hypervisor
On 2024/2/24 下午5:13, Huacai Chen wrote:
Hi, Bibo,
On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:28 AM Bibo Mao wrote:
Instruction cpucfg can be used to get processor features. And there
is trap exception when it is executed in VM mode, and also it is
to provide cpu features to VM. On real hardware cpucfg area 0 - 20
is used. Here one specified area 0x4000 -- 0x40ff is used
for KVM hypervisor to privide PV features, and the area can be extended
for other hypervisors in future. This area will never be used for
real HW, it is only used by software.
After reading and thinking, I find that the hypercall method which is
used in our productive kernel is better than this cpucfg method.
Because hypercall is more simple and straightforward, plus we don't
worry about conflicting with the real hardware.
About cpucfg area 0x4000 -- 0x40ff, I have negotiated with chip
designer. This area will never be used with real hardware.
Regards
Bibo Mao
Huacai
Signed-off-by: Bibo Mao
---
arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h | 1 +
arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h | 10 ++
arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c | 46 +-
3 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h
b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h
index d8f637f9e400..ad120f924905 100644
--- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h
+++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h
@@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ enum reg2_op {
revhd_op= 0x11,
extwh_op= 0x16,
extwb_op= 0x17,
+ cpucfg_op = 0x1b,
iocsrrdb_op = 0x19200,
iocsrrdh_op = 0x19201,
iocsrrdw_op = 0x19202,
diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h
b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h
index 46366e783c84..a1d22e8b6f94 100644
--- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h
+++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h
@@ -158,6 +158,16 @@
#define CPUCFG48_VFPU_CG BIT(2)
#define CPUCFG48_RAM_CG BIT(3)
+/*
+ * cpucfg index area: 0x4000 -- 0x40ff
+ * SW emulation for KVM hypervirsor
+ */
+#define CPUCFG_KVM_BASE0x4000UL
+#define CPUCFG_KVM_SIZE0x100
+#define CPUCFG_KVM_SIG CPUCFG_KVM_BASE
+#define KVM_SIGNATURE "KVM\0"
+#define CPUCFG_KVM_FEATURE (CPUCFG_KVM_BASE + 4)
+
#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
/* CSR */
diff --git a/arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c b/arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c
index 923bbca9bd22..6a38fd59d86d 100644
--- a/arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c
+++ b/arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c
@@ -206,10 +206,37 @@ int kvm_emu_idle(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
return EMULATE_DONE;
}
-static int kvm_trap_handle_gspr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+static int kvm_emu_cpucfg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, larch_inst inst)
{
int rd, rj;
unsigned int index;
+
+ rd = inst.reg2_format.rd;
+ rj = inst.reg2_format.rj;
+ ++vcpu->stat.cpucfg_exits;
+ index = vcpu->arch.gprs[rj];
+
+ /*
+* By LoongArch Reference Manual 2.2.10.5
+* Return value is 0 for undefined cpucfg index
+*/
+ switch (index) {
+ case 0 ... (KVM_MAX_CPUCFG_REGS - 1):
+ vcpu->arch.gprs[rd] = vcpu->arch.cpucfg[index];
+ break;
+ case CPUCFG_KVM_SIG:
+ vcpu->arch.gprs[rd] = *(unsigned int *)KVM_SIGNATURE;
+ break;
+ default:
+ vcpu->arch.gprs[rd] = 0;
+ break;
+ }
+
+ return EMULATE_DONE;
+}
+
+static int kvm_trap_handle_gspr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+{
unsigned long curr_pc;
larch_inst inst;
enum emulation_result er = EMULATE_DONE;
@@ -224,21 +251,8 @@ static int kvm_trap_handle_gspr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
er = EMULATE_FAIL;
switch (((inst.word >> 24) & 0xff)) {
case 0x0: /* CPUCFG GSPR */
- if (inst.reg2_format.opcode == 0x1B) {
- rd = inst.reg2_format.rd;
- rj = inst.reg2_format.rj;
- ++vcpu->stat.cpucfg_exits;
- index = vcpu->arch.gprs[rj];
- er = EMULATE_DONE;
- /*
-* By LoongArch Reference Manual 2.2.10.5
-* return value is 0 for undefined cpucfg index
-*/
- if (index < KVM_MAX_CPUCFG_REGS)
- vcpu->arch.gprs[rd] = vcpu->arch.cpucfg[index];
- else
- vcpu->arch.gprs[rd] = 0;
- }
+ if (inst.reg2_format.opcode == cpucfg_op)
+ er = kvm_emu_cpucfg(vcpu, inst);
break;
case 0x4: /* CSR{RD,WR,XCHG} GSPR */
er = kvm_handle_csr(vcpu, inst);
--
2.39.3
Re: [PATCH v5 3/6] LoongArch: KVM: Add cpucfg area for kvm hypervisor
On 2024/2/24 下午5:13, Huacai Chen wrote:
Hi, Bibo,
On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:28 AM Bibo Mao wrote:
Instruction cpucfg can be used to get processor features. And there
is trap exception when it is executed in VM mode, and also it is
to provide cpu features to VM. On real hardware cpucfg area 0 - 20
is used. Here one specified area 0x4000 -- 0x40ff is used
for KVM hypervisor to privide PV features, and the area can be extended
for other hypervisors in future. This area will never be used for
real HW, it is only used by software.
After reading and thinking, I find that the hypercall method which is
used in our productive kernel is better than this cpucfg method.
Because hypercall is more simple and straightforward, plus we don't
worry about conflicting with the real hardware.
No, I do not think so. cpucfg is simper than hypercall, hypercall can
be in effect when system runs in guest mode. In some scenario like TCG
mode, hypercall is illegal intruction, however cpucfg can work.
Extioi virtualization extension will be added later, cpucfg can be used
to get extioi features. It is unlikely that extioi driver depends on
PARA_VIRT macro if hypercall is used to get features.
Regards
Bibo Mao
Huacai
Signed-off-by: Bibo Mao
---
arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h | 1 +
arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h | 10 ++
arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c | 46 +-
3 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h
b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h
index d8f637f9e400..ad120f924905 100644
--- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h
+++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h
@@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ enum reg2_op {
revhd_op= 0x11,
extwh_op= 0x16,
extwb_op= 0x17,
+ cpucfg_op = 0x1b,
iocsrrdb_op = 0x19200,
iocsrrdh_op = 0x19201,
iocsrrdw_op = 0x19202,
diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h
b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h
index 46366e783c84..a1d22e8b6f94 100644
--- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h
+++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h
@@ -158,6 +158,16 @@
#define CPUCFG48_VFPU_CG BIT(2)
#define CPUCFG48_RAM_CG BIT(3)
+/*
+ * cpucfg index area: 0x4000 -- 0x40ff
+ * SW emulation for KVM hypervirsor
+ */
+#define CPUCFG_KVM_BASE0x4000UL
+#define CPUCFG_KVM_SIZE0x100
+#define CPUCFG_KVM_SIG CPUCFG_KVM_BASE
+#define KVM_SIGNATURE "KVM\0"
+#define CPUCFG_KVM_FEATURE (CPUCFG_KVM_BASE + 4)
+
#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
/* CSR */
diff --git a/arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c b/arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c
index 923bbca9bd22..6a38fd59d86d 100644
--- a/arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c
+++ b/arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c
@@ -206,10 +206,37 @@ int kvm_emu_idle(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
return EMULATE_DONE;
}
-static int kvm_trap_handle_gspr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+static int kvm_emu_cpucfg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, larch_inst inst)
{
int rd, rj;
unsigned int index;
+
+ rd = inst.reg2_format.rd;
+ rj = inst.reg2_format.rj;
+ ++vcpu->stat.cpucfg_exits;
+ index = vcpu->arch.gprs[rj];
+
+ /*
+* By LoongArch Reference Manual 2.2.10.5
+* Return value is 0 for undefined cpucfg index
+*/
+ switch (index) {
+ case 0 ... (KVM_MAX_CPUCFG_REGS - 1):
+ vcpu->arch.gprs[rd] = vcpu->arch.cpucfg[index];
+ break;
+ case CPUCFG_KVM_SIG:
+ vcpu->arch.gprs[rd] = *(unsigned int *)KVM_SIGNATURE;
+ break;
+ default:
+ vcpu->arch.gprs[rd] = 0;
+ break;
+ }
+
+ return EMULATE_DONE;
+}
+
+static int kvm_trap_handle_gspr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+{
unsigned long curr_pc;
larch_inst inst;
enum emulation_result er = EMULATE_DONE;
@@ -224,21 +251,8 @@ static int kvm_trap_handle_gspr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
er = EMULATE_FAIL;
switch (((inst.word >> 24) & 0xff)) {
case 0x0: /* CPUCFG GSPR */
- if (inst.reg2_format.opcode == 0x1B) {
- rd = inst.reg2_format.rd;
- rj = inst.reg2_format.rj;
- ++vcpu->stat.cpucfg_exits;
- index = vcpu->arch.gprs[rj];
- er = EMULATE_DONE;
- /*
-* By LoongArch Reference Manual 2.2.10.5
-* return value is 0 for undefined cpucfg index
-*/
- if (index < KVM_MAX_CPUCFG_REGS)
- vcpu->arch.gprs[rd] = vcpu->arch.cpucfg[index];
- else
- vcpu->arch.gprs[rd] = 0;
- }
+ if (inst.reg2_format.opcode ==
Re: [PATCH v5 3/6] LoongArch: KVM: Add cpucfg area for kvm hypervisor
Hi, Bibo,
On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:28 AM Bibo Mao wrote:
>
> Instruction cpucfg can be used to get processor features. And there
> is trap exception when it is executed in VM mode, and also it is
> to provide cpu features to VM. On real hardware cpucfg area 0 - 20
> is used. Here one specified area 0x4000 -- 0x40ff is used
> for KVM hypervisor to privide PV features, and the area can be extended
> for other hypervisors in future. This area will never be used for
> real HW, it is only used by software.
After reading and thinking, I find that the hypercall method which is
used in our productive kernel is better than this cpucfg method.
Because hypercall is more simple and straightforward, plus we don't
worry about conflicting with the real hardware.
Huacai
>
> Signed-off-by: Bibo Mao
> ---
> arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h | 1 +
> arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h | 10 ++
> arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c | 46 +-
> 3 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h
> b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h
> index d8f637f9e400..ad120f924905 100644
> --- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h
> +++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/inst.h
> @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ enum reg2_op {
> revhd_op= 0x11,
> extwh_op= 0x16,
> extwb_op= 0x17,
> + cpucfg_op = 0x1b,
> iocsrrdb_op = 0x19200,
> iocsrrdh_op = 0x19201,
> iocsrrdw_op = 0x19202,
> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h
> b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h
> index 46366e783c84..a1d22e8b6f94 100644
> --- a/arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h
> +++ b/arch/loongarch/include/asm/loongarch.h
> @@ -158,6 +158,16 @@
> #define CPUCFG48_VFPU_CG BIT(2)
> #define CPUCFG48_RAM_CG BIT(3)
>
> +/*
> + * cpucfg index area: 0x4000 -- 0x40ff
> + * SW emulation for KVM hypervirsor
> + */
> +#define CPUCFG_KVM_BASE0x4000UL
> +#define CPUCFG_KVM_SIZE0x100
> +#define CPUCFG_KVM_SIG CPUCFG_KVM_BASE
> +#define KVM_SIGNATURE "KVM\0"
> +#define CPUCFG_KVM_FEATURE (CPUCFG_KVM_BASE + 4)
> +
> #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>
> /* CSR */
> diff --git a/arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c b/arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c
> index 923bbca9bd22..6a38fd59d86d 100644
> --- a/arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c
> +++ b/arch/loongarch/kvm/exit.c
> @@ -206,10 +206,37 @@ int kvm_emu_idle(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> return EMULATE_DONE;
> }
>
> -static int kvm_trap_handle_gspr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +static int kvm_emu_cpucfg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, larch_inst inst)
> {
> int rd, rj;
> unsigned int index;
> +
> + rd = inst.reg2_format.rd;
> + rj = inst.reg2_format.rj;
> + ++vcpu->stat.cpucfg_exits;
> + index = vcpu->arch.gprs[rj];
> +
> + /*
> +* By LoongArch Reference Manual 2.2.10.5
> +* Return value is 0 for undefined cpucfg index
> +*/
> + switch (index) {
> + case 0 ... (KVM_MAX_CPUCFG_REGS - 1):
> + vcpu->arch.gprs[rd] = vcpu->arch.cpucfg[index];
> + break;
> + case CPUCFG_KVM_SIG:
> + vcpu->arch.gprs[rd] = *(unsigned int *)KVM_SIGNATURE;
> + break;
> + default:
> + vcpu->arch.gprs[rd] = 0;
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + return EMULATE_DONE;
> +}
> +
> +static int kvm_trap_handle_gspr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> unsigned long curr_pc;
> larch_inst inst;
> enum emulation_result er = EMULATE_DONE;
> @@ -224,21 +251,8 @@ static int kvm_trap_handle_gspr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> er = EMULATE_FAIL;
> switch (((inst.word >> 24) & 0xff)) {
> case 0x0: /* CPUCFG GSPR */
> - if (inst.reg2_format.opcode == 0x1B) {
> - rd = inst.reg2_format.rd;
> - rj = inst.reg2_format.rj;
> - ++vcpu->stat.cpucfg_exits;
> - index = vcpu->arch.gprs[rj];
> - er = EMULATE_DONE;
> - /*
> -* By LoongArch Reference Manual 2.2.10.5
> -* return value is 0 for undefined cpucfg index
> -*/
> - if (index < KVM_MAX_CPUCFG_REGS)
> - vcpu->arch.gprs[rd] =
> vcpu->arch.cpucfg[index];
> - else
> - vcpu->arch.gprs[rd] = 0;
> - }
> + if (inst.reg2_format.opcode == cpucfg_op)
> + er = kvm_emu_cpucfg(vcpu, inst);
> break;
> case 0x4: /* CSR{RD,WR,XCHG} GSPR */
> er = kvm_handle_csr(vcpu, inst);
> --
> 2.39.3
>
