[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yeqqle7lERyreSLi@FVFF77S0Q05N>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2022 12:44:05 +0000
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, aleksandar.qemu.devel@...il.com,
alexandru.elisei@....com, anup.patel@....com,
aou@...s.berkeley.edu, atish.patra@....com,
borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com, bp@...en8.de, catalin.marinas@....com,
chenhuacai@...nel.org, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
frankja@...ux.ibm.com, frederic@...nel.org, gor@...ux.ibm.com,
hca@...ux.ibm.com, james.morse@....com, jmattson@...gle.com,
joro@...tes.org, luto@...nel.org, maz@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
mpe@...erman.id.au, nsaenzju@...hat.com, palmer@...belt.com,
paulmck@...nel.org, paul.walmsley@...ive.com, peterz@...radead.org,
seanjc@...gle.com, suzuki.poulose@....com, svens@...ux.ibm.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, tsbogend@...ha.franken.de, vkuznets@...hat.com,
wanpengli@...cent.com, will@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] kvm/mips: rework guest entry logic
On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 06:29:25PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 1/20/22 18:15, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > As above, we'll also need the guest_state_{enter,exit}() calls
> > surrounding this (e.g. before that local_irq_enable() at the start of
> > kvm_mips_handle_exit(),
>
> Oh, indeed. And there is also an interrupt-enabled area similar to s390's,
> in both vcpu_run and the exception handler entry point (which falls through
> to the exit handler created by kvm_mips_build_exit). For example:
>
> /* Setup status register for running guest in UM */
> uasm_i_ori(&p, V1, V1, ST0_EXL | KSU_USER | ST0_IE);
> UASM_i_LA(&p, AT, ~(ST0_CU0 | ST0_MX | ST0_SX | ST0_UX));
> uasm_i_and(&p, V1, V1, AT);
> uasm_i_mtc0(&p, V1, C0_STATUS);
> uasm_i_ehb(&p);
>
> I'd rather get rid altogether of the EQS for MIPS.
Ok; I'm not immediately sure how to do that without invasive changes around the
context tracking bits.
Did you have a specific approach in mind, or was that just a general statement?
> > and that needs to happen in noinstr code, etc.
>
> There are bigger problems with instrumentation, because the
> runtime-generated code as far as I can tell is not noinstr.
The generated sequences themselves are not a problem -- they're not
compiler-instrumented, and kprobes will reject them since they live in a
kzalloc()'d buffer which is outside of kernel text.
Those call tlbmiss_handler_setup_pgd(), but that itself is runtime-generated,
and AFAICT doesn't call anything. It is placed within the kernel text, but it
could be blacklisted from kprobes.
Have I missed something there?
Thanks,
Mark.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists