[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190416163212.GX3567@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 17:32:12 +0100
From: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
To: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@....com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Kristina Martsenko <kristina.martsenko@....com>,
kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana.radhakrishnan@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 4/5] KVM: arm64: Add capability to advertise ptrauth
for guest
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 08:50:35AM +0530, Amit Daniel Kachhap wrote:
> This patch advertises the capability of two cpu feature called address
> pointer authentication and generic pointer authentication. These
> capabilities depend upon system support for pointer authentication and
> VHE mode.
>
> The current arm64 KVM partially implements pointer authentication and
> support of address/generic authentication are tied together. However,
> separate ABI requirements for both of them is added so that any future
> isolated implementation will not require any ABI changes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@....com>
> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
> Cc: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@....com>
> Cc: kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu
> ---
> Changes since v8:
> * Keep the capability check same for the 2 vcpu ptrauth features. [Dave Martin]
>
> Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt | 2 ++
> arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c | 5 +++++
> include/uapi/linux/kvm.h | 2 ++
> 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
> index 9d202f4..56021d0 100644
> --- a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
> @@ -2756,9 +2756,11 @@ Possible features:
> - KVM_ARM_VCPU_PTRAUTH_ADDRESS: Enables Address Pointer authentication
> for the CPU and supported only on arm64 architecture.
> Must be requested if KVM_ARM_VCPU_PTRAUTH_GENERIC is also requested.
> + Depends on KVM_CAP_ARM_PTRAUTH_ADDRESS.
What if KVM_CAP_ARM_PTRAUTH_ADDRESS is absent and
KVM_ARM_VCPU_PTRAUTH_GENERIC is requested? By these rules, we have a
contradiction: userspace both must request and must not request
KVM_ARM_VCPU_PTRAUTH_ADDRESS.
We could qualify as follows:
Depends on KVM_CAP_ARM_PTRAUTH_ADDRESS.
Must be requested if KVM_CAP_ARM_PTRAUTH_ADDRESS is present and
KVM_ARM_VCPU_PTRAUTH_GENERIC is also requested.
> - KVM_ARM_VCPU_PTRAUTH_GENERIC: Enables Generic Pointer authentication
> for the CPU and supported only on arm64 architecture.
> Must be requested if KVM_ARM_VCPU_PTRAUTH_ADDRESS is also requested.
> + Depends on KVM_CAP_ARM_PTRAUTH_GENERIC.
Similarly.
Or, we go back to having a single cap and a single feature, and add
more caps/features later on if we decide it's possible to support
address/generic auth separately later on.
Otherwise, we end up with complex rules that can't be tested. This is a
high price to pay for forwards compatibility: userspace's conformance to
the rules can't be fully tested, so there's a fair chance it won't work
properly anyway when hardware/KVM with just one auth type appears.
[...]
Thoughts?
Cheers
---Dave
Powered by blists - more mailing lists