linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: nv: Set ISTATUS for emulated timers, If timer expired

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: <86bjvdtxb5.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2025 18:38:22 +0000
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>
Cc: Eric Auger <eauger@...hat.com>,
	Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gankulkarni@...amperecomputing.com>,
	kvmarm <kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	christoffer.dall@....com,
	suzuki.poulose@....com,
	will@...nel.org,
	catalin.marinas@....com,
	coltonlewis@...gle.com,
	joey.gouly@....com,
	yuzenghui@...wei.com,
	darren@...amperecomputing.com,
	vishnu@...amperecomputing.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: nv: Set ISTATUS for emulated timers, If timer expired

On Fri, 07 Feb 2025 18:09:58 +0000,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev> wrote:
> 
> Hey,
> 
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 05:45:33PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > I found at least one issue that could fail the migration. Before the
> > VM starts running, we limit the feature set to the subset we actually
> > support with NV.
> > 
> > By doing this, we also change the value of IDreg fields that are not
> > writable, because they describe features that we don't support.
> > Obviously, that fails on restore.
> > 
> > I need to have a think...
> 
> We spoke about this a while ago (and I forgot til now), but I was
> wondering if we could use vCPU feature flags to describe NV, including
> the selection between FEAT_E2H0 and FEAT_VHE.
> 
> I think this might match userspace expectations a bit more closely where
> the state of the ID registers after init gives the actual feature set
> supported by the VM.

I'm not sure that's enough. Let me give you an example:

My host has FEAT_XNX, described in ID_AA64MMFR1_EL1.XNX. For whatever
reason, we don't allow this field to be written to, even out of NV
context. This is odd, because for an EL1 VM, this field means nothing
at all.

However, we don't yet support FEAT_XNX with NV (it requires some extra
surgery in the S2 walker, in the S2 shadowing code and in AT).

How would you manage this field if you had a vcpu flag saying E2H0 or
not? I don't think it helps, at least not in that particular case. It
may help for some things, but not all.

It feels that we need to define the field limit (and what is writable
or not) based on the NV/!NV support, and maybe E2H0/VHE as well.

This is getting complicated...

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.