lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 4/6] arm64/kvm: add a userspace option to enable pointer authentication
From
Date
Hi,

On 2/21/19 9:23 PM, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 02:54:29PM +0530, Amit Daniel Kachhap wrote:
>> This feature will allow the KVM guest to allow the handling of
>> pointer authentication instructions or to treat them as undefined
>> if not set. It uses the existing vcpu API KVM_ARM_VCPU_INIT to
>> supply this parameter instead of creating a new API.
>>
>> A new register is not created to pass this parameter via
>> SET/GET_ONE_REG interface as just a flag (KVM_ARM_VCPU_PTRAUTH)
>> supplied is enough to enable this feature.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@arm.com>
>> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
>> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
>> Cc: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@arm.com>
>> Cc: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
>> ---
>> Documentation/arm64/pointer-authentication.txt | 9 +++++----
>> Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt | 4 ++++
>> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 3 ++-
>> arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 1 +
>> arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c | 2 +-
>> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/ptrauth-sr.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
>> arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c | 3 +++
>> arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c | 26 +++++++++++++-------------
>> include/uapi/linux/kvm.h | 1 +
>> 9 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>
>
> [...]
>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> index 1bacf78..2768a53 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@
>>
>> #define KVM_MAX_VCPUS VGIC_V3_MAX_CPUS
>>
>> -#define KVM_VCPU_MAX_FEATURES 4
>> +#define KVM_VCPU_MAX_FEATURES 5
>>
>> #define KVM_REQ_SLEEP \
>> KVM_ARCH_REQ_FLAGS(0, KVM_REQUEST_WAIT | KVM_REQUEST_NO_WAKEUP)
>> @@ -451,6 +451,7 @@ static inline bool kvm_arch_requires_vhe(void)
>> return false;
>> }
>>
>> +bool kvm_arm_vcpu_ptrauth_allowed(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>> static inline bool kvm_supports_ptrauth(void)
>> {
>> return has_vhe() && system_supports_address_auth() &&
>
> [...]
>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/ptrauth-sr.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/ptrauth-sr.c
>> index 528ee6e..6846a23 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/ptrauth-sr.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/ptrauth-sr.c
>> @@ -93,9 +93,23 @@ void kvm_arm_vcpu_ptrauth_reset(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>
> [...]
>
>> +/**
>> + * kvm_arm_vcpu_ptrauth_allowed - checks if ptrauth feature is allowed by user
>> + *
>> + * @vcpu: The VCPU pointer
>> + *
>> + * This function will be used to check userspace option to have ptrauth or not
>> + * in the guest kernel.
>> + */
>> +bool kvm_arm_vcpu_ptrauth_allowed(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> +{
>> + return kvm_supports_ptrauth() &&
>> + test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_PTRAUTH, vcpu->arch.features);
>> +}
>
> Nit: for SVE is called the equivalent helper vcpu_has_sve(vcpu).
>
> Neither naming is more correct, but it would make sense to be
> consistent. We will likely accumulate more of these vcpu feature
> predicates over time.
>
> Given that this is trivial and will be used all over the place, it
> probably makes sense to define it in kvm_host.h rather than having it
> out of line in a separate C file.
Ok I checked the SVE implementation. vcpu_has_ptrauth macro make more sense.
>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c
>> index b72a3dd..987e0c3c 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c
>> @@ -91,6 +91,9 @@ int kvm_arch_vm_ioctl_check_extension(struct kvm *kvm, long ext)
>> case KVM_CAP_ARM_VM_IPA_SIZE:
>> r = kvm_ipa_limit;
>> break;
>> + case KVM_CAP_ARM_PTRAUTH:
>> + r = kvm_supports_ptrauth();
>> + break;
>> default:
>> r = 0;
>> }
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
>> index 12529df..f7bcc60 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
>> @@ -1055,7 +1055,7 @@ static bool access_cntp_cval(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>> }
>>
>> /* Read a sanitised cpufeature ID register by sys_reg_desc */
>> -static u64 read_id_reg(struct sys_reg_desc const *r, bool raz)
>> +static u64 read_id_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct sys_reg_desc const *r, bool raz)
>> {
>> u32 id = sys_reg((u32)r->Op0, (u32)r->Op1,
>> (u32)r->CRn, (u32)r->CRm, (u32)r->Op2);
>> @@ -1071,7 +1071,7 @@ static u64 read_id_reg(struct sys_reg_desc const *r, bool raz)
>> (0xfUL << ID_AA64ISAR1_API_SHIFT) |
>> (0xfUL << ID_AA64ISAR1_GPA_SHIFT) |
>> (0xfUL << ID_AA64ISAR1_GPI_SHIFT);
>> - if (!kvm_supports_ptrauth()) {
>> + if (!kvm_arm_vcpu_ptrauth_allowed(vcpu)) {
>> kvm_debug("ptrauth unsupported for guests, suppressing\n");
>> val &= ~ptrauth_mask;
>> }
>> @@ -1095,7 +1095,7 @@ static bool __access_id_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>> if (p->is_write)
>> return write_to_read_only(vcpu, p, r);
>>
>> - p->regval = read_id_reg(r, raz);
>> + p->regval = read_id_reg(vcpu, r, raz);
>> return true;
>> }
>
> The SVE KVM series makes various overlapping changes to propagate vcpuo
> into the relevant places, but hopefully the rebase is not too painful.
> Many of the changes are probably virtually identical between the two
> series.
>
> See for example [1]. Maybe you could cherry-pick and drop the
> equivalent changes here (though if your series is picked up first, I
> will live with it ;)
Yes no issue. I will cherry-pick your specific patch and rebase mine on it.

Thanks,
Amit D
>
> [...]
>
> Cheers
> ---Dave
>
>
> [1] [PATCH v5 10/26] KVM: arm64: Propagate vcpu into read_id_reg()
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/pipermail/kvmarm/2019-February/034687.html
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-01 10:41    [W:0.079 / U:9.436 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site