[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1519633227-29832-31-git-send-email-alex.shi@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 16:20:04 +0800
From: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>
To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org (open list:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE (KVM)),
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org (moderated list:KERNEL VIRTUAL
MACHINE FOR ARM64 (KVM/arm64)),
kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu (open list:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE FOR
ARM64 (KVM/arm64)), linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org (open list)
Subject: [PATCH 30/52] arm64: KVM: Increment PC after handling an SMC trap
From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
commit f5115e8869e1 upstream.
When handling an SMC trap, the "preferred return address" is set
to that of the SMC, and not the next PC (which is a departure from
the behaviour of an SMC that isn't trapped).
Increment PC in the handler, as the guest is otherwise forever
stuck...
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
Fixes: acfb3b883f6d ("arm64: KVM: Fix SMCCC handling of unimplemented SMC/HVC calls")
Reviewed-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>
Tested-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@...aro.org>
---
arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c | 9 +++++++++
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
index 2e6e9e9..5b56b09 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
@@ -53,7 +53,16 @@ static int handle_hvc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
static int handle_smc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
{
+ /*
+ * "If an SMC instruction executed at Non-secure EL1 is
+ * trapped to EL2 because HCR_EL2.TSC is 1, the exception is a
+ * Trap exception, not a Secure Monitor Call exception [...]"
+ *
+ * We need to advance the PC after the trap, as it would
+ * otherwise return to the same address...
+ */
vcpu_set_reg(vcpu, 0, ~0UL);
+ kvm_skip_instr(vcpu, kvm_vcpu_trap_il_is32bit(vcpu));
return 1;
}
--
2.7.4
Powered by blists - more mailing lists