linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] KVM: arm64: Add PSCI SYSTEM

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ae19d48af7e7273b4382c3d1c69af02097eeb7ef.camel@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2024 17:06:27 +0000
From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini
 <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Oliver Upton
 <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>, James Morse <james.morse@....com>, Suzuki K
 Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>, Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>,
 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Lorenzo Pieralisi
 <lpieralisi@...nel.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Len Brown
 <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Mostafa Saleh
 <smostafa@...gle.com>, Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>, 
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,  linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] KVM: arm64: Add PSCI SYSTEM_OFF2 function for
 hibernation

On Tue, 2024-03-12 at 15:36 +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 13:51:28 +0000,
> David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> wrote:
> > 
> > +Hibernation using the PSCI SYSTEM_OFF2 call is enabled with the
> > +KVM_CAP_ARM_SYSTEM_OFF2 VM capability. If a guest invokes the PSCI
> 
> Checking that PSCI 1.3 is enabled for the guest should be enough, no?
> I don't think providing yet another level of optionally brings us
> much, other than complexity.

This is just following what we already do for SYSTEM_RESET2. Regardless
of the PSCI version, these calls are *optional*. Shouldn't exposing
them to the guest be a deliberate choice on the part of the userspace
VMM?

I was originally thinking of a KVM_CAP with a bitmask of the optional
features to be enabled (and which would return the bitmask of supported
features). But that isn't how it was already being done, so I just
followed the existing precedent.

> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/psci-relay.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/psci-relay.c
> > @@ -264,6 +264,8 @@ static unsigned long psci_1_0_handler(u64 func_id, struct kvm_cpu_context *host_
> >         switch (func_id) {
> >         case PSCI_1_0_FN_PSCI_FEATURES:
> >         case PSCI_1_0_FN_SET_SUSPEND_MODE:
> > +       case PSCI_1_3_FN_SYSTEM_OFF2:
> > +       case PSCI_1_3_FN64_SYSTEM_OFF2:
> 
> nit: order by version number.

Ack.

> > @@ -353,6 +359,11 @@ static int kvm_psci_1_x_call(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 minor)
> >                         if (test_bit(KVM_ARCH_FLAG_SYSTEM_SUSPEND_ENABLED, &kvm->arch.flags))
> >                                 val = 0;
> >                         break;
> > +               case PSCI_1_3_FN_SYSTEM_OFF2:
> > +               case PSCI_1_3_FN64_SYSTEM_OFF2:
> > +                       if (test_bit(KVM_ARCH_FLAG_SYSTEM_OFF2_ENABLED, &kvm->arch.flags))
> > +                               val = 1UL << PSCI_1_3_HIBERNATE_TYPE_OFF;
> > +                       break;
> 
> Testing the PSCI version should be enough (minor >= 3). Same thing
> goes the the capability: checking that the host supports 1.3 should be
> enough.

Wouldn't that mean we should implement *all* the new functions which
are optional in v1.3? I really think the opt-in should be per feature,
for the optional ones.

Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (5965 bytes)