[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0ebade5427b2d9a020cd33da64cb9d13@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2020 11:30:44 +0000
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: David Brazdil <dbrazdil@...gle.com>
Cc: kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@...il.com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>,
Andrew Scull <ascull@...gle.com>, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 18/26] kvm: arm64: Intercept PSCI_CPU_OFF host SMC
calls
On 2020-11-04 18:36, David Brazdil wrote:
> Add a handler of the CPU_OFF PSCI host SMC trapped in KVM nVHE hyp
> code.
> When invoked, it changes the recorded state of the core to OFF before
> forwarding the call to EL3. If the call fails, it changes the state
> back
> to ON and returns the error to the host.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Brazdil <dbrazdil@...gle.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/psci.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/psci.c
> b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/psci.c
> index c3d0a6246c66..00dc0cab860c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/psci.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/psci.c
> @@ -13,6 +13,8 @@
> #include <kvm/arm_psci.h>
> #include <uapi/linux/psci.h>
>
> +#include <nvhe/spinlock.h>
> +
> /* Config options set by the host. */
> u32 kvm_host_psci_version = PSCI_VERSION(0, 0);
> u32 kvm_host_psci_function_id[PSCI_FN_MAX];
> @@ -20,6 +22,7 @@ s64 hyp_physvirt_offset;
>
> #define __hyp_pa(x) ((phys_addr_t)(x) + hyp_physvirt_offset)
>
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(hyp_spinlock_t, psci_cpu_lock);
> DEFINE_PER_CPU(enum kvm_nvhe_psci_state, psci_cpu_state);
>
> static u64 get_psci_func_id(struct kvm_cpu_context *host_ctxt)
> @@ -76,9 +79,32 @@ static __noreturn unsigned long
> psci_forward_noreturn(struct kvm_cpu_context *ho
> hyp_panic(); /* unreachable */
> }
>
> +static int psci_cpu_off(u64 func_id, struct kvm_cpu_context
> *host_ctxt)
> +{
> + hyp_spinlock_t *cpu_lock = this_cpu_ptr(&psci_cpu_lock);
> + enum kvm_nvhe_psci_state *cpu_power = this_cpu_ptr(&psci_cpu_state);
> + u32 power_state = (u32)host_ctxt->regs.regs[1];
> + int ret;
> +
> + /* Change the recorded state to OFF before forwarding the call. */
> + hyp_spin_lock(cpu_lock);
> + *cpu_power = KVM_NVHE_PSCI_CPU_OFF;
> + hyp_spin_unlock(cpu_lock);
So at this point, another CPU can observe the vcpu being "off", and
issue
a PSCI_ON, which may result in an "already on". I'm not sure this is an
actual issue, but it is worth documenting.
What is definitely missing is a rational about *why* we need to track
the
state of the vcpus. I naively imagined that we could directly proxy the
PSCI calls to EL3, only repainting PC for PSCI_ON.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists