| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAK9=C2XSdrOSTp7skR4btGFkfL==0E+Su71d4bgJGXB80x6rBw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2023 10:56:09 +0530
From: Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>
To: Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/8] RISC-V: KVM: Allow some SBI extensions to be
disabled by default
On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 1:27 PM Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 10:45:04AM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
> > Currently, all SBI extensions are enabled by default which is
> > problematic for SBI extensions (such as DBCN) which are forwarded
> > to the KVM user-space because we might have an older KVM user-space
> > which is not aware/ready to handle newer SBI extensions. Ideally,
> > the SBI extensions forwarded to the KVM user-space must be
> > disabled by default.
> >
> > To address above, we allow certain SBI extensions to be disabled
> > by default so that KVM user-space must explicitly enable such
> > SBI extensions to receive forwarded calls from Guest VCPU.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>
> > ---
> > arch/riscv/include/asm/kvm_vcpu_sbi.h | 4 +++
> > arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu.c | 6 ++++
> > arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++-----------
> > 3 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/kvm_vcpu_sbi.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/kvm_vcpu_sbi.h
> > index 8d6d4dce8a5e..c02bda5559d7 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/kvm_vcpu_sbi.h
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/kvm_vcpu_sbi.h
> > @@ -35,6 +35,9 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_sbi_return {
> > struct kvm_vcpu_sbi_extension {
> > unsigned long extid_start;
> > unsigned long extid_end;
> > +
> > + bool default_unavail;
> > +
> > /**
> > * SBI extension handler. It can be defined for a given extension or group of
> > * extension. But it should always return linux error codes rather than SBI
> > @@ -59,6 +62,7 @@ int kvm_riscv_vcpu_get_reg_sbi_ext(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > const struct kvm_vcpu_sbi_extension *kvm_vcpu_sbi_find_ext(
> > struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long extid);
> > int kvm_riscv_vcpu_sbi_ecall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run);
> > +void kvm_riscv_vcpu_sbi_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_RISCV_SBI_V01
> > extern const struct kvm_vcpu_sbi_extension vcpu_sbi_ext_v01;
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu.c b/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu.c
> > index c061a1c5fe98..e087c809073c 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu.c
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu.c
> > @@ -141,6 +141,12 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_create(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > if (rc)
> > return rc;
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Setup SBI extensions
> > + * NOTE: This must be the last thing to be initialized.
> > + */
> > + kvm_riscv_vcpu_sbi_init(vcpu);
>
> With this, we no longer defer probing to the first access (whether that's
> by the guest or KVM userspace). With our current small set of SBI
> extensions where only a single one has a probe function, then this
> simpler approach is good enough. We can always go back to the lazy
> approach later if needed.
I agree. We can fallback to lazy probing in the future if required.
>
> > +
> > /* Reset VCPU */
> > kvm_riscv_reset_vcpu(vcpu);
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi.c b/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi.c
> > index 9cd97091c723..1b1cee86efda 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi.c
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi.c
> > @@ -155,14 +155,8 @@ static int riscv_vcpu_set_sbi_ext_single(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > if (!sext)
> > return -ENOENT;
> >
> > - /*
> > - * We can't set the extension status to available here, since it may
> > - * have a probe() function which needs to confirm availability first,
> > - * but it may be too early to call that here. We can set the status to
> > - * unavailable, though.
> > - */
> > - if (!reg_val)
> > - scontext->ext_status[sext->ext_idx] =
> > + scontext->ext_status[sext->ext_idx] = (reg_val) ?
> > + KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_AVAILABLE :
> > KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_UNAVAILABLE;
>
> We're missing the change to riscv_vcpu_get_sbi_ext_single() which should
> also drop the comment block explaining the limits to status knowledge
> without initial probing (which we now do) and then just check for
> available, i.e.
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi.c b/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi.c
> index bb76c3cf633f..92c42d9aba1c 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi.c
> @@ -186,15 +186,8 @@ static int riscv_vcpu_get_sbi_ext_single(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> if (!sext)
> return -ENOENT;
>
> - /*
> - * If the extension status is still uninitialized, then we should probe
> - * to determine if it's available, but it may be too early to do that
> - * here. The best we can do is report that the extension has not been
> - * disabled, i.e. we return 1 when the extension is available and also
> - * when it only may be available.
> - */
> - *reg_val = scontext->ext_status[sext->ext_idx] !=
> - KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_UNAVAILABLE;
> + *reg_val = scontext->ext_status[sext->ext_idx] ==
> + KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_AVAILABLE;
>
> return 0;
> }
Thanks, I will include this change in the next revision.
>
> >
> > return 0;
> > @@ -337,18 +331,8 @@ const struct kvm_vcpu_sbi_extension *kvm_vcpu_sbi_find_ext(
> > scontext->ext_status[entry->ext_idx] ==
> > KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_AVAILABLE)
> > return ext;
> > - if (scontext->ext_status[entry->ext_idx] ==
> > - KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_UNAVAILABLE)
> > - return NULL;
> > - if (ext->probe && !ext->probe(vcpu)) {
> > - scontext->ext_status[entry->ext_idx] =
> > - KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_UNAVAILABLE;
> > - return NULL;
> > - }
> >
> > - scontext->ext_status[entry->ext_idx] =
> > - KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_AVAILABLE;
> > - return ext;
> > + return NULL;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > @@ -419,3 +403,26 @@ int kvm_riscv_vcpu_sbi_ecall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
> >
> > return ret;
> > }
> > +
> > +void kvm_riscv_vcpu_sbi_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > +{
> > + struct kvm_vcpu_sbi_context *scontext = &vcpu->arch.sbi_context;
> > + const struct kvm_riscv_sbi_extension_entry *entry;
> > + const struct kvm_vcpu_sbi_extension *ext;
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(sbi_ext); i++) {
> > + entry = &sbi_ext[i];
> > + ext = entry->ext_ptr;
> > +
> > + if (ext->probe && !ext->probe(vcpu)) {
> > + scontext->ext_status[entry->ext_idx] =
> > + KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_UNAVAILABLE;
> > + continue;
> > + }
> > +
> > + scontext->ext_status[entry->ext_idx] = ext->default_unavail ?
> > + KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_UNAVAILABLE :
> > + KVM_RISCV_SBI_EXT_AVAILABLE;
> > + }
> > +}
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >
>
> Thanks,
> drew
Regards,
Anup
Powered by blists - more mailing lists