lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/7] arm64/kvm: context-switch ptrauth registers
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 09:37:25AM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 04:17:55PM +0530, Amit Daniel Kachhap wrote:
> > From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> >
> > When pointer authentication is supported, a guest may wish to use it.
> > This patch adds the necessary KVM infrastructure for this to work.
> >
> > When we schedule a vcpu, we enable guest usage of pointer
> > authentication instructions and accesses to the keys. After these are
> > enabled, we allow context-switching the keys.
> >
> > Pointer authentication consists of address authentication and generic
> > authentication, and CPUs in a system might have varied support for
> > either. Where support for either feature is not uniform, it is hidden
> > from guests via ID register emulation, as a result of the cpufeature
> > framework in the host.
> >
> > Unfortunately, address authentication and generic authentication cannot
> > be trapped separately, as the architecture provides a single EL2 trap
> > covering both. If we wish to expose one without the other, we cannot
> > prevent a (badly-written) guest from intermittently using a feature
> > which is not uniformly supported (when scheduled on a physical CPU which
> > supports the relevant feature). When the guest is scheduled on a
> > physical CPU lacking the feature, these attempts will result in an UNDEF
> > being taken by the guest.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@arm.com>
> > Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
> > Cc: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@arm.com>
> > Cc: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
[...]
> Two questions:
>
> - Can we limit all ptrauth functionality to VHE systems so that we
> don't need to touch the non-VHE path and so that we don't need any of
> the __hyp_text stuff?

I would say yes. ARMv8.3 implies v8.1, so can enable ptrauth only when
VHE is built into the kernel and present in the CPU implementation.

> - Can we move all the save/restore logic to vcpu load/put as long as
> the host kernel itself isn't using ptrauth, and if the host kernel at
> some point begins to use ptrauth, can we have a hook to save/restore
> at that time (similar to what we do for FPSIMD) to avoid this
> overhead on every switch?

We will probably enable ptrauth for the kernel as well fairly soon, so I
don't think we should base the KVM assumption on the no ptrauth in
kernel use-case.

--
Catalin

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-13 02:40    [W:0.072 / U:0.708 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site