2020-12-13 16:39:34

by Eric Auger

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH 0/9] KVM/ARM: Some vgic fixes and init sequence KVM selftests

While writting vgic v3 init sequence KVM selftests I noticed some
relatively minor issues. This was also the opportunity to try to
fix the issue laterly reported by Zenghui, related to the RDIST_TYPER
last bit emulation. The final patch is a first batch of VGIC init
sequence selftests. Of course they can be augmented with a lot more
register access tests, but let's try to move forward incrementally ...

Best Regards

Eric

This series can be found at:
https://github.com/eauger/linux/tree/vgic-selftests-and-fixes-v1

Eric Auger (9):
KVM: arm64: vgic-v3: Fix some error codes when setting RDIST base
KVM: arm64: Fix KVM_VGIC_V3_ADDR_TYPE_REDIST_REGION read
KVM: arm64: vgic-v3: Fix error handling in vgic_v3_set_redist_base()
KVM: arm/arm64: vgic: Reset base address on kvm_vgic_dist_destroy()
KVM: arm: move has_run_once after the map_resources
docs: kvm: devices/arm-vgic-v3: enhance KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_CTRL_INIT doc
KVM: arm64: Simplify argument passing to vgic_uaccess_[read|write]
KVM: arm64: vgic-v3: Expose GICR_TYPER.Last for userspace
KVM: selftests: aarch64/vgic-v3 init sequence tests

.../virt/kvm/devices/arm-vgic-v3.rst | 2 +-
arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 4 +-
arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-init.c | 7 +-
arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-kvm-device.c | 3 +
arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c | 24 +-
arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c | 10 +-
include/kvm/arm_vgic.h | 1 +
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile | 1 +
.../testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vgic_init.c | 453 ++++++++++++++++++
.../testing/selftests/kvm/include/kvm_util.h | 5 +
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/kvm_util.c | 51 ++
11 files changed, 546 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vgic_init.c

--
2.21.3


2020-12-13 16:40:39

by Eric Auger

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH 5/9] KVM: arm: move has_run_once after the map_resources

has_run_once is set to true at the beginning of
kvm_vcpu_first_run_init(). This generally is not an issue
except when exercising the code with KVM selftests. Indeed,
if kvm_vgic_map_resources() fails due to erroneous user settings,
has_run_once is set and this prevents from continuing
executing the test. This patch moves the assignment after the
kvm_vgic_map_resources().

Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
---
arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
index c0ffb019ca8b..331fae6bff31 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
@@ -540,8 +540,6 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_first_run_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
if (!kvm_arm_vcpu_is_finalized(vcpu))
return -EPERM;

- vcpu->arch.has_run_once = true;
-
if (likely(irqchip_in_kernel(kvm))) {
/*
* Map the VGIC hardware resources before running a vcpu the
@@ -560,6 +558,8 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_first_run_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
static_branch_inc(&userspace_irqchip_in_use);
}

+ vcpu->arch.has_run_once = true;
+
ret = kvm_timer_enable(vcpu);
if (ret)
return ret;
--
2.21.3

2020-12-14 06:07:54

by Eric Auger

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH 8/9] KVM: arm64: vgic-v3: Expose GICR_TYPER.Last for userspace

Commit 23bde34771f1 ("KVM: arm64: vgic-v3: Drop the
reporting of GICR_TYPER.Last for userspace") temporarily fixed
a bug identified when attempting to access the GICR_TYPER
register before the redistributor region setting but dropped
the support of the LAST bit. This patch restores its
support (if the redistributor region was set) while keeping the
code safe.

Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
---
arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c | 7 ++++++-
include/kvm/arm_vgic.h | 1 +
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
index 581f0f490000..2f9ef6058f6e 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
@@ -277,6 +277,8 @@ static unsigned long vgic_uaccess_read_v3r_typer(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
gpa_t addr, unsigned int len)
{
unsigned long mpidr = kvm_vcpu_get_mpidr_aff(vcpu);
+ struct vgic_cpu *vgic_cpu = &vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu;
+ struct vgic_redist_region *rdreg = vgic_cpu->rdreg;
int target_vcpu_id = vcpu->vcpu_id;
u64 value;

@@ -286,7 +288,9 @@ static unsigned long vgic_uaccess_read_v3r_typer(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
if (vgic_has_its(vcpu->kvm))
value |= GICR_TYPER_PLPIS;

- /* reporting of the Last bit is not supported for userspace */
+ if (rdreg && (vgic_cpu->rdreg_index == (rdreg->free_index - 1)))
+ value |= GICR_TYPER_LAST;
+
return extract_bytes(value, addr & 7, len);
}

@@ -714,6 +718,7 @@ int vgic_register_redist_iodev(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
return -EINVAL;

vgic_cpu->rdreg = rdreg;
+ vgic_cpu->rdreg_index = rdreg->free_index;

rd_base = rdreg->base + rdreg->free_index * KVM_VGIC_V3_REDIST_SIZE;

diff --git a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
index a8d8fdcd3723..596c069263a7 100644
--- a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
+++ b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
@@ -322,6 +322,7 @@ struct vgic_cpu {
*/
struct vgic_io_device rd_iodev;
struct vgic_redist_region *rdreg;
+ u32 rdreg_index;

/* Contains the attributes and gpa of the LPI pending tables. */
u64 pendbaser;
--
2.21.3

2020-12-14 06:09:02

by Eric Auger

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH 2/9] KVM: arm64: Fix KVM_VGIC_V3_ADDR_TYPE_REDIST_REGION read

The doc says:
"The characteristics of a specific redistributor region can
be read by presetting the index field in the attr data.
Only valid for KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3"

Unfortunately the existing code fails to read the input attr data
and thus the index always is 0.

Fixes: 04c110932225 ("KVM: arm/arm64: Implement KVM_VGIC_V3_ADDR_TYPE_REDIST_REGION")
Cc: [email protected]#v4.17+
Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
---
arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-kvm-device.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-kvm-device.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-kvm-device.c
index 44419679f91a..2f66cf247282 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-kvm-device.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-kvm-device.c
@@ -226,6 +226,9 @@ static int vgic_get_common_attr(struct kvm_device *dev,
u64 addr;
unsigned long type = (unsigned long)attr->attr;

+ if (copy_from_user(&addr, uaddr, sizeof(addr)))
+ return -EFAULT;
+
r = kvm_vgic_addr(dev->kvm, type, &addr, false);
if (r)
return (r == -ENODEV) ? -ENXIO : r;
--
2.21.3

2020-12-14 08:15:10

by Eric Auger

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH 7/9] KVM: arm64: Simplify argument passing to vgic_uaccess_[read|write]

Instead of converting the vgic_io_device handle to a kvm_io_device
handled and then do the oppositive, pass a vgic_io_device pointer all
along the call chain.

Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
---
arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c | 10 ++++------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c
index b2d73fc0d1ef..48c6067fc5ec 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c
@@ -938,10 +938,9 @@ vgic_get_mmio_region(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vgic_io_device *iodev,
return region;
}

-static int vgic_uaccess_read(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_io_device *dev,
+static int vgic_uaccess_read(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vgic_io_device *iodev,
gpa_t addr, u32 *val)
{
- struct vgic_io_device *iodev = kvm_to_vgic_iodev(dev);
const struct vgic_register_region *region;
struct kvm_vcpu *r_vcpu;

@@ -960,10 +959,9 @@ static int vgic_uaccess_read(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_io_device *dev,
return 0;
}

-static int vgic_uaccess_write(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_io_device *dev,
+static int vgic_uaccess_write(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vgic_io_device *iodev,
gpa_t addr, const u32 *val)
{
- struct vgic_io_device *iodev = kvm_to_vgic_iodev(dev);
const struct vgic_register_region *region;
struct kvm_vcpu *r_vcpu;

@@ -986,9 +984,9 @@ int vgic_uaccess(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vgic_io_device *dev,
bool is_write, int offset, u32 *val)
{
if (is_write)
- return vgic_uaccess_write(vcpu, &dev->dev, offset, val);
+ return vgic_uaccess_write(vcpu, dev, offset, val);
else
- return vgic_uaccess_read(vcpu, &dev->dev, offset, val);
+ return vgic_uaccess_read(vcpu, dev, offset, val);
}

static int dispatch_mmio_read(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_io_device *dev,
--
2.21.3

2020-12-14 08:16:14

by Eric Auger

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH 1/9] KVM: arm64: vgic-v3: Fix some error codes when setting RDIST base

KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_ADDR group doc says we should return
-EEXIST in case the base address of the redist is already set.
We currently return -EINVAL.

However we need to return -EINVAL in case a legacy REDIST address
is attempted to be set while REDIST_REGIONS were set. This case
is discriminated by looking at the count field.

Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
---
arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c | 9 +++++++--
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
index 15a6c98ee92f..8e8a862def76 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
@@ -792,8 +792,13 @@ static int vgic_v3_insert_redist_region(struct kvm *kvm, uint32_t index,
int ret;

/* single rdist region already set ?*/
- if (!count && !list_empty(rd_regions))
- return -EINVAL;
+ if (!count && !list_empty(rd_regions)) {
+ rdreg = list_last_entry(rd_regions,
+ struct vgic_redist_region, list);
+ if (rdreg->count)
+ return -EINVAL; /* Mixing REDIST and REDIST_REGION API */
+ return -EEXIST;
+ }

/* cross the end of memory ? */
if (base + size < base)
--
2.21.3

2021-01-06 16:36:38

by Alexandru Elisei

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] KVM: arm64: vgic-v3: Fix some error codes when setting RDIST base

Hi Eric,

On 12/12/20 6:50 PM, Eric Auger wrote:
> KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_ADDR group doc says we should return
> -EEXIST in case the base address of the redist is already set.
> We currently return -EINVAL.
>
> However we need to return -EINVAL in case a legacy REDIST address
> is attempted to be set while REDIST_REGIONS were set. This case
> is discriminated by looking at the count field.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c | 9 +++++++--
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
> index 15a6c98ee92f..8e8a862def76 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
> @@ -792,8 +792,13 @@ static int vgic_v3_insert_redist_region(struct kvm *kvm, uint32_t index,
> int ret;
>
> /* single rdist region already set ?*/
> - if (!count && !list_empty(rd_regions))
> - return -EINVAL;
> + if (!count && !list_empty(rd_regions)) {
> + rdreg = list_last_entry(rd_regions,
> + struct vgic_redist_region, list);
> + if (rdreg->count)
> + return -EINVAL; /* Mixing REDIST and REDIST_REGION API */
> + return -EEXIST;
> + }

A few instructions below:

    if (list_empty(rd_regions)) {
        [..]
    } else {
        rdreg = list_last_entry(rd_regions,
                    struct vgic_redist_region, list);
        [..]

        /* Cannot add an explicitly sized regions after legacy region */
        if (!rdreg->count)
            return -EINVAL;
    }

Isn't this testing for the same thing, but using the opposite condition? Or am I
misunderstanding the code (quite likely)?

Looks to me like KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_ADDR(KVM_VGIC_V3_ADDR_TYPE_REDIST{,_REGION})
used to return -EEXIST (from vgic_check_ioaddr()) before commit ccc27bf5be7b7
("KVM: arm/arm64: Helper to register a new redistributor region") which added the
vgic_v3_insert_redist_region() function, so bringing back the -EEXIST return code
looks the right thing to me.

Thanks,
Alex
>
> /* cross the end of memory ? */
> if (base + size < base)

2021-01-06 17:15:13

by Alexandru Elisei

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] KVM: arm64: Fix KVM_VGIC_V3_ADDR_TYPE_REDIST_REGION read

Hi Eric,

The patch looks correct to me. kvm_vgic_addr() masks out all the bits except index
from addr, so we don't need to do it in vgic_get_common_attr():

Reviewed-by: Alexandru Elisei <[email protected]>

One nitpick below.

On 12/12/20 6:50 PM, Eric Auger wrote:
> The doc says:
> "The characteristics of a specific redistributor region can
> be read by presetting the index field in the attr data.
> Only valid for KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3"
>
> Unfortunately the existing code fails to read the input attr data
> and thus the index always is 0.

addr is allocated on the stack, I don't think it will always be 0.

Thanks,
Alex
>
> Fixes: 04c110932225 ("KVM: arm/arm64: Implement KVM_VGIC_V3_ADDR_TYPE_REDIST_REGION")
> Cc: [email protected]#v4.17+
> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-kvm-device.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-kvm-device.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-kvm-device.c
> index 44419679f91a..2f66cf247282 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-kvm-device.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-kvm-device.c
> @@ -226,6 +226,9 @@ static int vgic_get_common_attr(struct kvm_device *dev,
> u64 addr;
> unsigned long type = (unsigned long)attr->attr;
>
> + if (copy_from_user(&addr, uaddr, sizeof(addr)))
> + return -EFAULT;
> +
> r = kvm_vgic_addr(dev->kvm, type, &addr, false);
> if (r)
> return (r == -ENODEV) ? -ENXIO : r;

2021-01-12 14:59:31

by Alexandru Elisei

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] KVM: arm: move has_run_once after the map_resources

Hi Eric,

On 12/12/20 6:50 PM, Eric Auger wrote:
> has_run_once is set to true at the beginning of
> kvm_vcpu_first_run_init(). This generally is not an issue
> except when exercising the code with KVM selftests. Indeed,
> if kvm_vgic_map_resources() fails due to erroneous user settings,
> has_run_once is set and this prevents from continuing
> executing the test. This patch moves the assignment after the
> kvm_vgic_map_resources().
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> index c0ffb019ca8b..331fae6bff31 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> @@ -540,8 +540,6 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_first_run_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> if (!kvm_arm_vcpu_is_finalized(vcpu))
> return -EPERM;
>
> - vcpu->arch.has_run_once = true;
> -
> if (likely(irqchip_in_kernel(kvm))) {
> /*
> * Map the VGIC hardware resources before running a vcpu the
> @@ -560,6 +558,8 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_first_run_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> static_branch_inc(&userspace_irqchip_in_use);
> }
>
> + vcpu->arch.has_run_once = true;

I have a few concerns regarding this:

1. Moving has_run_once = true here seems very arbitrary to me - kvm_timer_enable()
and kvm_arm_pmu_v3_enable(), below it, can both fail because of erroneous user
values. If there's a reason why the assignment cannot be moved at the end of the
function, I think it should be clearly stated in a comment for the people who
might be tempted to write similar tests for the timer or pmu.

2. There are many ways that kvm_vgic_map_resources() can fail, other than
incorrect user settings. I started digging into how
kvm_vgic_map_resources()->vgic_v2_map_resources() can fail for a VGIC V2 and this
is what I managed to find before I gave up:

* vgic_init() can fail in:
    - kvm_vgic_dist_init()
    - vgic_v3_init()
    - kvm_vgic_setup_default_irq_routing()
* vgic_register_dist_iodev() can fail in:
    - vgic_v3_init_dist_iodev()
    - kvm_io_bus_register_dev()(*)
* kvm_phys_addr_ioremap() can fail in:
    - kvm_mmu_topup_memory_cache()
    - kvm_pgtable_stage2_map()

So if any of the functions below fail, are we 100% sure it is safe to allow the
user to execute kvm_vgic_map_resources() again?

(*) It looks to me like kvm_io_bus_register_dev() doesn't take into account a
caller that tries to register the same device address range and it will create
another identical range. Is this intentional? Is it a bug that should be fixed? Or
am I misunderstanding the function?

Thanks,
Alex
> +
> ret = kvm_timer_enable(vcpu);
> if (ret)
> return ret;

2021-01-12 16:06:56

by Alexandru Elisei

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] KVM: arm64: Simplify argument passing to vgic_uaccess_[read|write]

Hi Eric,

On 12/12/20 6:50 PM, Eric Auger wrote:
> Instead of converting the vgic_io_device handle to a kvm_io_device
> handled and then do the oppositive, pass a vgic_io_device pointer all
> along the call chain.

To me, it looks like the commit message describes what the patch does instead of
why it does it.

What are "vgic_io_device handle" and "kvm_io_device handled"?

Thanks,
Alex
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c | 10 ++++------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c
> index b2d73fc0d1ef..48c6067fc5ec 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c
> @@ -938,10 +938,9 @@ vgic_get_mmio_region(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vgic_io_device *iodev,
> return region;
> }
>
> -static int vgic_uaccess_read(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_io_device *dev,
> +static int vgic_uaccess_read(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vgic_io_device *iodev,
> gpa_t addr, u32 *val)
> {
> - struct vgic_io_device *iodev = kvm_to_vgic_iodev(dev);
> const struct vgic_register_region *region;
> struct kvm_vcpu *r_vcpu;
>
> @@ -960,10 +959,9 @@ static int vgic_uaccess_read(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_io_device *dev,
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static int vgic_uaccess_write(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_io_device *dev,
> +static int vgic_uaccess_write(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vgic_io_device *iodev,
> gpa_t addr, const u32 *val)
> {
> - struct vgic_io_device *iodev = kvm_to_vgic_iodev(dev);
> const struct vgic_register_region *region;
> struct kvm_vcpu *r_vcpu;
>
> @@ -986,9 +984,9 @@ int vgic_uaccess(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vgic_io_device *dev,
> bool is_write, int offset, u32 *val)
> {
> if (is_write)
> - return vgic_uaccess_write(vcpu, &dev->dev, offset, val);
> + return vgic_uaccess_write(vcpu, dev, offset, val);
> else
> - return vgic_uaccess_read(vcpu, &dev->dev, offset, val);
> + return vgic_uaccess_read(vcpu, dev, offset, val);
> }
>
> static int dispatch_mmio_read(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_io_device *dev,

2021-01-12 16:20:57

by Alexandru Elisei

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] KVM: arm64: Simplify argument passing to vgic_uaccess_[read|write]

Hi Eric,

On 1/12/21 4:04 PM, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On 12/12/20 6:50 PM, Eric Auger wrote:
>> Instead of converting the vgic_io_device handle to a kvm_io_device
>> handled and then do the oppositive, pass a vgic_io_device pointer all
>> along the call chain.
> To me, it looks like the commit message describes what the patch does instead of
> why it does it.
>
> What are "vgic_io_device handle" and "kvm_io_device handled"?

Sorry, I think I got it now. You were referring to the argument types struct
vgic_io_device and struct kvm_io_device. The patch looks like a very good cleanup.

How changing to commit message to sound something like this (feel free to
ignore/change it if you think of something else):

vgic_uaccess() takes a struct vgic_io_device argument, converts it to a struct
kvm_io_device and passes it to the read/write accessor functions, which convert it
back to a struct vgic_io_device. Avoid the indirection by passing the struct
vgic_io_device argument directly to vgic_uaccess_{read,write).

Thanks,
Alex
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c | 10 ++++------
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c
>> index b2d73fc0d1ef..48c6067fc5ec 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c
>> @@ -938,10 +938,9 @@ vgic_get_mmio_region(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vgic_io_device *iodev,
>> return region;
>> }
>>
>> -static int vgic_uaccess_read(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_io_device *dev,
>> +static int vgic_uaccess_read(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vgic_io_device *iodev,
>> gpa_t addr, u32 *val)
>> {
>> - struct vgic_io_device *iodev = kvm_to_vgic_iodev(dev);
>> const struct vgic_register_region *region;
>> struct kvm_vcpu *r_vcpu;
>>
>> @@ -960,10 +959,9 @@ static int vgic_uaccess_read(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_io_device *dev,
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> -static int vgic_uaccess_write(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_io_device *dev,
>> +static int vgic_uaccess_write(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vgic_io_device *iodev,
>> gpa_t addr, const u32 *val)
>> {
>> - struct vgic_io_device *iodev = kvm_to_vgic_iodev(dev);
>> const struct vgic_register_region *region;
>> struct kvm_vcpu *r_vcpu;
>>
>> @@ -986,9 +984,9 @@ int vgic_uaccess(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vgic_io_device *dev,
>> bool is_write, int offset, u32 *val)
>> {
>> if (is_write)
>> - return vgic_uaccess_write(vcpu, &dev->dev, offset, val);
>> + return vgic_uaccess_write(vcpu, dev, offset, val);
>> else
>> - return vgic_uaccess_read(vcpu, &dev->dev, offset, val);
>> + return vgic_uaccess_read(vcpu, dev, offset, val);
>> }
>>
>> static int dispatch_mmio_read(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_io_device *dev,
> _______________________________________________
> kvmarm mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm

2021-01-12 17:06:01

by Alexandru Elisei

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] KVM: arm64: vgic-v3: Expose GICR_TYPER.Last for userspace

Hi Eric,

On 12/12/20 6:50 PM, Eric Auger wrote:
> Commit 23bde34771f1 ("KVM: arm64: vgic-v3: Drop the
> reporting of GICR_TYPER.Last for userspace") temporarily fixed
> a bug identified when attempting to access the GICR_TYPER
> register before the redistributor region setting but dropped
> the support of the LAST bit. This patch restores its
> support (if the redistributor region was set) while keeping the
> code safe.

I suppose the reason for emulating GICR_TYPER.Last is for architecture compliance,
right? I think that should be in the commit message.

>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c | 7 ++++++-
> include/kvm/arm_vgic.h | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
> index 581f0f490000..2f9ef6058f6e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
> @@ -277,6 +277,8 @@ static unsigned long vgic_uaccess_read_v3r_typer(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> gpa_t addr, unsigned int len)
> {
> unsigned long mpidr = kvm_vcpu_get_mpidr_aff(vcpu);
> + struct vgic_cpu *vgic_cpu = &vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu;
> + struct vgic_redist_region *rdreg = vgic_cpu->rdreg;
> int target_vcpu_id = vcpu->vcpu_id;
> u64 value;
>
> @@ -286,7 +288,9 @@ static unsigned long vgic_uaccess_read_v3r_typer(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> if (vgic_has_its(vcpu->kvm))
> value |= GICR_TYPER_PLPIS;
>
> - /* reporting of the Last bit is not supported for userspace */
> + if (rdreg && (vgic_cpu->rdreg_index == (rdreg->free_index - 1)))
> + value |= GICR_TYPER_LAST;
> +
> return extract_bytes(value, addr & 7, len);
> }
>
> @@ -714,6 +718,7 @@ int vgic_register_redist_iodev(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> vgic_cpu->rdreg = rdreg;
> + vgic_cpu->rdreg_index = rdreg->free_index;

What happens if the next redistributor region we register has the base address
adjacent to this one?

I'm really not familiar with the code, but is it not possible to create two
Redistributor regions (via
KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_ADDR(KVM_VGIC_V3_ADDR_TYPE_REDIST)) where the second
Redistributor region start address is immediately after the last Redistributor in
the preceding region?

Thanks,
Alex
>
> rd_base = rdreg->base + rdreg->free_index * KVM_VGIC_V3_REDIST_SIZE;
>
> diff --git a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
> index a8d8fdcd3723..596c069263a7 100644
> --- a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
> +++ b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
> @@ -322,6 +322,7 @@ struct vgic_cpu {
> */
> struct vgic_io_device rd_iodev;
> struct vgic_redist_region *rdreg;
> + u32 rdreg_index;
>
> /* Contains the attributes and gpa of the LPI pending tables. */
> u64 pendbaser;

2021-01-12 17:31:34

by Alexandru Elisei

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] KVM: arm64: vgic-v3: Expose GICR_TYPER.Last for userspace

Hi Eric,

On 12/12/20 6:50 PM, Eric Auger wrote:
> Commit 23bde34771f1 ("KVM: arm64: vgic-v3: Drop the
> reporting of GICR_TYPER.Last for userspace") temporarily fixed
> a bug identified when attempting to access the GICR_TYPER
> register before the redistributor region setting but dropped
> the support of the LAST bit. This patch restores its
> support (if the redistributor region was set) while keeping the
> code safe.

If I understand your patch correctly, it is possible for the GICR_TYPER.Last bit
to be transiently 1 if the register is accessed before all the redistributors
regions have been configured.

Arm IHI 0069F states that accesses to the GICR_TYPER register are RO. I haven't
found exactly what RO means (please point me to the definition if you find it in
the architecture!), but I assume it means read-only and I'm not sure how correct
(from an architectural point of view) it is for two subsequent reads of this
register to return different values. Maybe Marc can shed some light on this.

Thanks,
Alex
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c | 7 ++++++-
> include/kvm/arm_vgic.h | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
> index 581f0f490000..2f9ef6058f6e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
> @@ -277,6 +277,8 @@ static unsigned long vgic_uaccess_read_v3r_typer(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> gpa_t addr, unsigned int len)
> {
> unsigned long mpidr = kvm_vcpu_get_mpidr_aff(vcpu);
> + struct vgic_cpu *vgic_cpu = &vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu;
> + struct vgic_redist_region *rdreg = vgic_cpu->rdreg;
> int target_vcpu_id = vcpu->vcpu_id;
> u64 value;
>
> @@ -286,7 +288,9 @@ static unsigned long vgic_uaccess_read_v3r_typer(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> if (vgic_has_its(vcpu->kvm))
> value |= GICR_TYPER_PLPIS;
>
> - /* reporting of the Last bit is not supported for userspace */
> + if (rdreg && (vgic_cpu->rdreg_index == (rdreg->free_index - 1)))
> + value |= GICR_TYPER_LAST;
> +
> return extract_bytes(value, addr & 7, len);
> }
>
> @@ -714,6 +718,7 @@ int vgic_register_redist_iodev(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> vgic_cpu->rdreg = rdreg;
> + vgic_cpu->rdreg_index = rdreg->free_index;
>
> rd_base = rdreg->base + rdreg->free_index * KVM_VGIC_V3_REDIST_SIZE;
>
> diff --git a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
> index a8d8fdcd3723..596c069263a7 100644
> --- a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
> +++ b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
> @@ -322,6 +322,7 @@ struct vgic_cpu {
> */
> struct vgic_io_device rd_iodev;
> struct vgic_redist_region *rdreg;
> + u32 rdreg_index;
>
> /* Contains the attributes and gpa of the LPI pending tables. */
> u64 pendbaser;

2021-01-12 17:51:33

by Marc Zyngier

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] KVM: arm64: vgic-v3: Expose GICR_TYPER.Last for userspace

On 2021-01-12 17:28, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On 12/12/20 6:50 PM, Eric Auger wrote:
>> Commit 23bde34771f1 ("KVM: arm64: vgic-v3: Drop the
>> reporting of GICR_TYPER.Last for userspace") temporarily fixed
>> a bug identified when attempting to access the GICR_TYPER
>> register before the redistributor region setting but dropped
>> the support of the LAST bit. This patch restores its
>> support (if the redistributor region was set) while keeping the
>> code safe.
>
> If I understand your patch correctly, it is possible for the
> GICR_TYPER.Last bit
> to be transiently 1 if the register is accessed before all the
> redistributors
> regions have been configured.
>
> Arm IHI 0069F states that accesses to the GICR_TYPER register are RO. I
> haven't
> found exactly what RO means (please point me to the definition if you
> find it in
> the architecture!), but I assume it means read-only and I'm not sure
> how correct
> (from an architectural point of view) it is for two subsequent reads of
> this
> register to return different values. Maybe Marc can shed some light on
> this.

RO = Read-Only indeed. Not sure that's documented anywhere in the
architecture,
but this is enough of a well known acronym that even the ARM ARM doesn't
feel
the need to invent a new definition for it.

As for your concern, I don't think it is a problem to return different
values
if the HW has changed in between. This may need to be documented though.

Thanks,

M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...

2021-01-13 17:21:25

by Eric Auger

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] KVM: arm64: Fix KVM_VGIC_V3_ADDR_TYPE_REDIST_REGION read

Hi Alexandru,

On 1/6/21 6:12 PM, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> The patch looks correct to me. kvm_vgic_addr() masks out all the bits except index
> from addr, so we don't need to do it in vgic_get_common_attr():
>
> Reviewed-by: Alexandru Elisei <[email protected]>
>
> One nitpick below.
>
> On 12/12/20 6:50 PM, Eric Auger wrote:
>> The doc says:
>> "The characteristics of a specific redistributor region can
>> be read by presetting the index field in the attr data.
>> Only valid for KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_VGIC_V3"
>>
>> Unfortunately the existing code fails to read the input attr data
>> and thus the index always is 0.
>
> addr is allocated on the stack, I don't think it will always be 0.
I removed this statement in the commit message. Thanks!

Eric
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>>
>> Fixes: 04c110932225 ("KVM: arm/arm64: Implement KVM_VGIC_V3_ADDR_TYPE_REDIST_REGION")
>> Cc: [email protected]#v4.17+
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-kvm-device.c | 3 +++
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-kvm-device.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-kvm-device.c
>> index 44419679f91a..2f66cf247282 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-kvm-device.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-kvm-device.c
>> @@ -226,6 +226,9 @@ static int vgic_get_common_attr(struct kvm_device *dev,
>> u64 addr;
>> unsigned long type = (unsigned long)attr->attr;
>>
>> + if (copy_from_user(&addr, uaddr, sizeof(addr)))
>> + return -EFAULT;
>> +
>> r = kvm_vgic_addr(dev->kvm, type, &addr, false);
>> if (r)
>> return (r == -ENODEV) ? -ENXIO : r;
>

2021-01-13 17:23:08

by Eric Auger

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] KVM: arm64: Simplify argument passing to vgic_uaccess_[read|write]

Hi Alexandru,
On 1/12/21 5:16 PM, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On 1/12/21 4:04 PM, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> On 12/12/20 6:50 PM, Eric Auger wrote:
>>> Instead of converting the vgic_io_device handle to a kvm_io_device
>>> handled and then do the oppositive, pass a vgic_io_device pointer all
>>> along the call chain.
>> To me, it looks like the commit message describes what the patch does instead of
>> why it does it.
>>
>> What are "vgic_io_device handle" and "kvm_io_device handled"?
Yes unfortunate typo, sorry.
>
> Sorry, I think I got it now. You were referring to the argument types struct
> vgic_io_device and struct kvm_io_device. The patch looks like a very good cleanup.
>
> How changing to commit message to sound something like this (feel free to
> ignore/change it if you think of something else):
>
> vgic_uaccess() takes a struct vgic_io_device argument, converts it to a struct
> kvm_io_device and passes it to the read/write accessor functions, which convert it
> back to a struct vgic_io_device. Avoid the indirection by passing the struct
> vgic_io_device argument directly to vgic_uaccess_{read,write).
I reworded the commit message as you suggested.

Thanks

Eric
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alex
>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c | 10 ++++------
>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c
>>> index b2d73fc0d1ef..48c6067fc5ec 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio.c
>>> @@ -938,10 +938,9 @@ vgic_get_mmio_region(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vgic_io_device *iodev,
>>> return region;
>>> }
>>>
>>> -static int vgic_uaccess_read(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_io_device *dev,
>>> +static int vgic_uaccess_read(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vgic_io_device *iodev,
>>> gpa_t addr, u32 *val)
>>> {
>>> - struct vgic_io_device *iodev = kvm_to_vgic_iodev(dev);
>>> const struct vgic_register_region *region;
>>> struct kvm_vcpu *r_vcpu;
>>>
>>> @@ -960,10 +959,9 @@ static int vgic_uaccess_read(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_io_device *dev,
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> -static int vgic_uaccess_write(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_io_device *dev,
>>> +static int vgic_uaccess_write(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vgic_io_device *iodev,
>>> gpa_t addr, const u32 *val)
>>> {
>>> - struct vgic_io_device *iodev = kvm_to_vgic_iodev(dev);
>>> const struct vgic_register_region *region;
>>> struct kvm_vcpu *r_vcpu;
>>>
>>> @@ -986,9 +984,9 @@ int vgic_uaccess(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vgic_io_device *dev,
>>> bool is_write, int offset, u32 *val)
>>> {
>>> if (is_write)
>>> - return vgic_uaccess_write(vcpu, &dev->dev, offset, val);
>>> + return vgic_uaccess_write(vcpu, dev, offset, val);
>>> else
>>> - return vgic_uaccess_read(vcpu, &dev->dev, offset, val);
>>> + return vgic_uaccess_read(vcpu, dev, offset, val);
>>> }
>>>
>>> static int dispatch_mmio_read(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_io_device *dev,
>> _______________________________________________
>> kvmarm mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
>

2021-01-14 10:06:57

by Eric Auger

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] KVM: arm64: vgic-v3: Fix some error codes when setting RDIST base

Hi Alexandru,

On 1/6/21 5:32 PM, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On 12/12/20 6:50 PM, Eric Auger wrote:
>> KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_ADDR group doc says we should return
>> -EEXIST in case the base address of the redist is already set.
>> We currently return -EINVAL.
>>
>> However we need to return -EINVAL in case a legacy REDIST address
>> is attempted to be set while REDIST_REGIONS were set. This case
>> is discriminated by looking at the count field.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c | 9 +++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
>> index 15a6c98ee92f..8e8a862def76 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
>> @@ -792,8 +792,13 @@ static int vgic_v3_insert_redist_region(struct kvm *kvm, uint32_t index,
>> int ret;
>>
>> /* single rdist region already set ?*/
>> - if (!count && !list_empty(rd_regions))
>> - return -EINVAL;
>> + if (!count && !list_empty(rd_regions)) {
>> + rdreg = list_last_entry(rd_regions,
>> + struct vgic_redist_region, list);
>> + if (rdreg->count)
>> + return -EINVAL; /* Mixing REDIST and REDIST_REGION API */
>> + return -EEXIST;
>> + }
>
> A few instructions below:
>
>     if (list_empty(rd_regions)) {
>         [..]
>     } else {
>         rdreg = list_last_entry(rd_regions,
>                     struct vgic_redist_region, list);
>         [..]
>
>         /* Cannot add an explicitly sized regions after legacy region */
>         if (!rdreg->count)
>             return -EINVAL;
>     }
>
> Isn't this testing for the same thing, but using the opposite condition? Or am I
> misunderstanding the code (quite likely)?
the 1st test sequence handles the case where the legacy
KVM_VGIC_V3_ADDR_TYPE_REDIST is used (!count) while the second handles
the case where the REDIST_REGION is used. Nevertheless I think this can
be simplified into:

if (list_empty(rd_regions)) {
if (index != 0)
return -EINVAL;
} else {
rdreg = list_last_entry(rd_regions,
struct vgic_redist_region, list);

if ((!count) != (!rdreg->count))
return -EINVAL; /* Mix REDIST and REDIST_REGION */

if (!count)
return -EEXIST;

if (index != rdreg->index + 1)
return -EINVAL;
}






>
> Looks to me like KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_ADDR(KVM_VGIC_V3_ADDR_TYPE_REDIST{,_REGION})
> used to return -EEXIST (from vgic_check_ioaddr()) before commit ccc27bf5be7b7
> ("KVM: arm/arm64: Helper to register a new redistributor region") which added the
> vgic_v3_insert_redist_region() function, so bringing back the -EEXIST return code
> looks the right thing to me.

OK thank you for the detailed study.

Eric
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>>
>> /* cross the end of memory ? */
>> if (base + size < base)
>

2021-01-14 10:06:58

by Eric Auger

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] KVM: arm: move has_run_once after the map_resources

Hi Alexandru,

On 1/12/21 3:55 PM, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On 12/12/20 6:50 PM, Eric Auger wrote:
>> has_run_once is set to true at the beginning of
>> kvm_vcpu_first_run_init(). This generally is not an issue
>> except when exercising the code with KVM selftests. Indeed,
>> if kvm_vgic_map_resources() fails due to erroneous user settings,
>> has_run_once is set and this prevents from continuing
>> executing the test. This patch moves the assignment after the
>> kvm_vgic_map_resources().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
>> index c0ffb019ca8b..331fae6bff31 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
>> @@ -540,8 +540,6 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_first_run_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> if (!kvm_arm_vcpu_is_finalized(vcpu))
>> return -EPERM;
>>
>> - vcpu->arch.has_run_once = true;
>> -
>> if (likely(irqchip_in_kernel(kvm))) {
>> /*
>> * Map the VGIC hardware resources before running a vcpu the
>> @@ -560,6 +558,8 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_first_run_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> static_branch_inc(&userspace_irqchip_in_use);
>> }
>>
>> + vcpu->arch.has_run_once = true;
>
> I have a few concerns regarding this:
>
> 1. Moving has_run_once = true here seems very arbitrary to me - kvm_timer_enable()
> and kvm_arm_pmu_v3_enable(), below it, can both fail because of erroneous user
> values. If there's a reason why the assignment cannot be moved at the end of the
> function, I think it should be clearly stated in a comment for the people who
> might be tempted to write similar tests for the timer or pmu.

Setting has_run_once = true at the entry of the function looks to me
even more arbitrary. I agree with you that eventually has_run_once may
be moved at the very end but maybe this can be done later once timer,
pmu tests haven ben written
>
> 2. There are many ways that kvm_vgic_map_resources() can fail, other than
> incorrect user settings. I started digging into how
> kvm_vgic_map_resources()->vgic_v2_map_resources() can fail for a VGIC V2 and this
> is what I managed to find before I gave up:
>
> * vgic_init() can fail in:
>     - kvm_vgic_dist_init()
>     - vgic_v3_init()
>     - kvm_vgic_setup_default_irq_routing()
> * vgic_register_dist_iodev() can fail in:
>     - vgic_v3_init_dist_iodev()
>     - kvm_io_bus_register_dev()(*)
> * kvm_phys_addr_ioremap() can fail in:
>     - kvm_mmu_topup_memory_cache()
>     - kvm_pgtable_stage2_map()

I changed the commit msg so that "incorrect user settings" sounds as an
example.
>
> So if any of the functions below fail, are we 100% sure it is safe to allow the
> user to execute kvm_vgic_map_resources() again?

I think additional tests will confirm this. However at the moment,
moving the assignment, which does not look wrong to me, allows to
greatly simplify the tests so I would tend to say that it is worth.
>
> (*) It looks to me like kvm_io_bus_register_dev() doesn't take into account a
> caller that tries to register the same device address range and it will create
> another identical range. Is this intentional? Is it a bug that should be fixed? Or
> am I misunderstanding the function?

doesn't kvm_io_bus_cmp() do the check?

Thanks

Eric
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>> +
>> ret = kvm_timer_enable(vcpu);
>> if (ret)
>> return ret;
>

2021-01-14 10:19:28

by Eric Auger

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] KVM: arm64: vgic-v3: Expose GICR_TYPER.Last for userspace

Hi Alexandru,

On 1/12/21 6:02 PM, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On 12/12/20 6:50 PM, Eric Auger wrote:
>> Commit 23bde34771f1 ("KVM: arm64: vgic-v3: Drop the
>> reporting of GICR_TYPER.Last for userspace") temporarily fixed
>> a bug identified when attempting to access the GICR_TYPER
>> register before the redistributor region setting but dropped
>> the support of the LAST bit. This patch restores its
>> support (if the redistributor region was set) while keeping the
>> code safe.
>
> I suppose the reason for emulating GICR_TYPER.Last is for architecture compliance,
> right? I think that should be in the commit message.
OK added this in the commit msg.
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c | 7 ++++++-
>> include/kvm/arm_vgic.h | 1 +
>> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
>> index 581f0f490000..2f9ef6058f6e 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
>> @@ -277,6 +277,8 @@ static unsigned long vgic_uaccess_read_v3r_typer(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>> gpa_t addr, unsigned int len)
>> {
>> unsigned long mpidr = kvm_vcpu_get_mpidr_aff(vcpu);
>> + struct vgic_cpu *vgic_cpu = &vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu;
>> + struct vgic_redist_region *rdreg = vgic_cpu->rdreg;
>> int target_vcpu_id = vcpu->vcpu_id;
>> u64 value;
>>
>> @@ -286,7 +288,9 @@ static unsigned long vgic_uaccess_read_v3r_typer(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>> if (vgic_has_its(vcpu->kvm))
>> value |= GICR_TYPER_PLPIS;
>>
>> - /* reporting of the Last bit is not supported for userspace */
>> + if (rdreg && (vgic_cpu->rdreg_index == (rdreg->free_index - 1)))
>> + value |= GICR_TYPER_LAST;
>> +
>> return extract_bytes(value, addr & 7, len);
>> }
>>
>> @@ -714,6 +718,7 @@ int vgic_register_redist_iodev(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> return -EINVAL;
>>
>> vgic_cpu->rdreg = rdreg;
>> + vgic_cpu->rdreg_index = rdreg->free_index;
>
> What happens if the next redistributor region we register has the base address
> adjacent to this one?
>
> I'm really not familiar with the code, but is it not possible to create two
> Redistributor regions (via
> KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_ADDR(KVM_VGIC_V3_ADDR_TYPE_REDIST)) where the second
> Redistributor region start address is immediately after the last Redistributor in
> the preceding region?
KVM_VGIC_V3_ADDR_TYPE_REDIST only allows to create a single rdist
region. Only KVM_VGIC_V3_ADDR_TYPE_REDIST_REGION allows to register
several of them.

with KVM_VGIC_V3_ADDR_TYPE_REDIST_REGION, it is possible to register
adjacent rdist regions. vgic_v3_rdist_free_slot() previously returned
the 1st rdist region where enough space remains for inserting the new
reg. We put the rdist at the free index there.

But maybe I misunderstood your question?

Thanks

Eric
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>>
>> rd_base = rdreg->base + rdreg->free_index * KVM_VGIC_V3_REDIST_SIZE;
>>
>> diff --git a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
>> index a8d8fdcd3723..596c069263a7 100644
>> --- a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
>> +++ b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
>> @@ -322,6 +322,7 @@ struct vgic_cpu {
>> */
>> struct vgic_io_device rd_iodev;
>> struct vgic_redist_region *rdreg;
>> + u32 rdreg_index;
>>
>> /* Contains the attributes and gpa of the LPI pending tables. */
>> u64 pendbaser;
>

2021-01-20 16:03:58

by Alexandru Elisei

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] KVM: arm: move has_run_once after the map_resources

Hi Eric,

On 1/14/21 10:02 AM, Auger Eric wrote:
> Hi Alexandru,
>
> On 1/12/21 3:55 PM, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> On 12/12/20 6:50 PM, Eric Auger wrote:
>>> has_run_once is set to true at the beginning of
>>> kvm_vcpu_first_run_init(). This generally is not an issue
>>> except when exercising the code with KVM selftests. Indeed,
>>> if kvm_vgic_map_resources() fails due to erroneous user settings,
>>> has_run_once is set and this prevents from continuing
>>> executing the test. This patch moves the assignment after the
>>> kvm_vgic_map_resources().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 4 ++--
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
>>> index c0ffb019ca8b..331fae6bff31 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
>>> @@ -540,8 +540,6 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_first_run_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>> if (!kvm_arm_vcpu_is_finalized(vcpu))
>>> return -EPERM;
>>>
>>> - vcpu->arch.has_run_once = true;
>>> -
>>> if (likely(irqchip_in_kernel(kvm))) {
>>> /*
>>> * Map the VGIC hardware resources before running a vcpu the
>>> @@ -560,6 +558,8 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_first_run_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>> static_branch_inc(&userspace_irqchip_in_use);
>>> }
>>>
>>> + vcpu->arch.has_run_once = true;
>> I have a few concerns regarding this:
>>
>> 1. Moving has_run_once = true here seems very arbitrary to me - kvm_timer_enable()
>> and kvm_arm_pmu_v3_enable(), below it, can both fail because of erroneous user
>> values. If there's a reason why the assignment cannot be moved at the end of the
>> function, I think it should be clearly stated in a comment for the people who
>> might be tempted to write similar tests for the timer or pmu.
> Setting has_run_once = true at the entry of the function looks to me
> even more arbitrary. I agree with you that eventually has_run_once may

Or it could be it's there to prevent the user from calling
kvm_vgic_map_resources() a second time after it failed. This is what I'm concerned
about and I think deserves more investigation.

Thanks,
Alex
> be moved at the very end but maybe this can be done later once timer,
> pmu tests haven ben written
>> 2. There are many ways that kvm_vgic_map_resources() can fail, other than
>> incorrect user settings. I started digging into how
>> kvm_vgic_map_resources()->vgic_v2_map_resources() can fail for a VGIC V2 and this
>> is what I managed to find before I gave up:
>>
>> * vgic_init() can fail in:
>>     - kvm_vgic_dist_init()
>>     - vgic_v3_init()
>>     - kvm_vgic_setup_default_irq_routing()
>> * vgic_register_dist_iodev() can fail in:
>>     - vgic_v3_init_dist_iodev()
>>     - kvm_io_bus_register_dev()(*)
>> * kvm_phys_addr_ioremap() can fail in:
>>     - kvm_mmu_topup_memory_cache()
>>     - kvm_pgtable_stage2_map()
> I changed the commit msg so that "incorrect user settings" sounds as an
> example.
>> So if any of the functions below fail, are we 100% sure it is safe to allow the
>> user to execute kvm_vgic_map_resources() again?
> I think additional tests will confirm this. However at the moment,
> moving the assignment, which does not look wrong to me, allows to
> greatly simplify the tests so I would tend to say that it is worth.
>> (*) It looks to me like kvm_io_bus_register_dev() doesn't take into account a
>> caller that tries to register the same device address range and it will create
>> another identical range. Is this intentional? Is it a bug that should be fixed? Or
>> am I misunderstanding the function?
> doesn't kvm_io_bus_cmp() do the check?
>
> Thanks
>
> Eric
>> Thanks,
>> Alex
>>> +
>>> ret = kvm_timer_enable(vcpu);
>>> if (ret)
>>> return ret;

2021-01-20 16:17:48

by Alexandru Elisei

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] KVM: arm64: vgic-v3: Expose GICR_TYPER.Last for userspace

Hi Eric,

On 1/14/21 10:16 AM, Auger Eric wrote:
> Hi Alexandru,
>
> On 1/12/21 6:02 PM, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
>> Hi Eric,
>>
>> On 12/12/20 6:50 PM, Eric Auger wrote:
>>> Commit 23bde34771f1 ("KVM: arm64: vgic-v3: Drop the
>>> reporting of GICR_TYPER.Last for userspace") temporarily fixed
>>> a bug identified when attempting to access the GICR_TYPER
>>> register before the redistributor region setting but dropped
>>> the support of the LAST bit. This patch restores its
>>> support (if the redistributor region was set) while keeping the
>>> code safe.
>> I suppose the reason for emulating GICR_TYPER.Last is for architecture compliance,
>> right? I think that should be in the commit message.
> OK added this in the commit msg.
>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c | 7 ++++++-
>>> include/kvm/arm_vgic.h | 1 +
>>> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
>>> index 581f0f490000..2f9ef6058f6e 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
>>> @@ -277,6 +277,8 @@ static unsigned long vgic_uaccess_read_v3r_typer(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>> gpa_t addr, unsigned int len)
>>> {
>>> unsigned long mpidr = kvm_vcpu_get_mpidr_aff(vcpu);
>>> + struct vgic_cpu *vgic_cpu = &vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu;
>>> + struct vgic_redist_region *rdreg = vgic_cpu->rdreg;
>>> int target_vcpu_id = vcpu->vcpu_id;
>>> u64 value;
>>>
>>> @@ -286,7 +288,9 @@ static unsigned long vgic_uaccess_read_v3r_typer(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>> if (vgic_has_its(vcpu->kvm))
>>> value |= GICR_TYPER_PLPIS;
>>>
>>> - /* reporting of the Last bit is not supported for userspace */
>>> + if (rdreg && (vgic_cpu->rdreg_index == (rdreg->free_index - 1)))
>>> + value |= GICR_TYPER_LAST;
>>> +
>>> return extract_bytes(value, addr & 7, len);
>>> }
>>>
>>> @@ -714,6 +718,7 @@ int vgic_register_redist_iodev(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>
>>> vgic_cpu->rdreg = rdreg;
>>> + vgic_cpu->rdreg_index = rdreg->free_index;
>> What happens if the next redistributor region we register has the base address
>> adjacent to this one?
>>
>> I'm really not familiar with the code, but is it not possible to create two
>> Redistributor regions (via
>> KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_ADDR(KVM_VGIC_V3_ADDR_TYPE_REDIST)) where the second
>> Redistributor region start address is immediately after the last Redistributor in
>> the preceding region?
> KVM_VGIC_V3_ADDR_TYPE_REDIST only allows to create a single rdist
> region. Only KVM_VGIC_V3_ADDR_TYPE_REDIST_REGION allows to register
> several of them.
>
> with KVM_VGIC_V3_ADDR_TYPE_REDIST_REGION, it is possible to register
> adjacent rdist regions. vgic_v3_rdist_free_slot() previously returned
> the 1st rdist region where enough space remains for inserting the new
> reg. We put the rdist at the free index there.
>
> But maybe I misunderstood your question?

Yes, I think you did a good job at answering my poorly worded question.

This is the case I am concerned about:

1. Userspace sets first redistributor base address to 0x0 via
KVM_VGIC_V3_ADDR_TYPE_REDIST_REGION(count = 1, base = 0x0, flags = 0, index = 0).

2. Userspace sets first redistributor base address to 0x0 + 128K, immediately
following the previous Redistributor.

In that case the two Redistributors will be represented by two separate struct
vgic_redist_region, but they are adjacent to one another and represent one
contiguous memory region.

From what I understand from your patch, GICR_TYPER.Last will be set for both
Redistributors, when it should be set only for the second Redistributor. Does any
of that make sense?

Thanks,
Alex
>
> Thanks
>
> Eric
>> Thanks,
>> Alex
>>>
>>> rd_base = rdreg->base + rdreg->free_index * KVM_VGIC_V3_REDIST_SIZE;
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
>>> index a8d8fdcd3723..596c069263a7 100644
>>> --- a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
>>> +++ b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
>>> @@ -322,6 +322,7 @@ struct vgic_cpu {
>>> */
>>> struct vgic_io_device rd_iodev;
>>> struct vgic_redist_region *rdreg;
>>> + u32 rdreg_index;
>>>
>>> /* Contains the attributes and gpa of the LPI pending tables. */
>>> u64 pendbaser;

2021-03-12 17:29:40

by Eric Auger

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] KVM: arm: move has_run_once after the map_resources

Hi Alexandru,

On 1/20/21 4:56 PM, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On 1/14/21 10:02 AM, Auger Eric wrote:
>> Hi Alexandru,
>>
>> On 1/12/21 3:55 PM, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
>>> Hi Eric,
>>>
>>> On 12/12/20 6:50 PM, Eric Auger wrote:
>>>> has_run_once is set to true at the beginning of
>>>> kvm_vcpu_first_run_init(). This generally is not an issue
>>>> except when exercising the code with KVM selftests. Indeed,
>>>> if kvm_vgic_map_resources() fails due to erroneous user settings,
>>>> has_run_once is set and this prevents from continuing
>>>> executing the test. This patch moves the assignment after the
>>>> kvm_vgic_map_resources().
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 4 ++--
>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
>>>> index c0ffb019ca8b..331fae6bff31 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
>>>> @@ -540,8 +540,6 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_first_run_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>> if (!kvm_arm_vcpu_is_finalized(vcpu))
>>>> return -EPERM;
>>>>
>>>> - vcpu->arch.has_run_once = true;
>>>> -
>>>> if (likely(irqchip_in_kernel(kvm))) {
>>>> /*
>>>> * Map the VGIC hardware resources before running a vcpu the
>>>> @@ -560,6 +558,8 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_first_run_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>> static_branch_inc(&userspace_irqchip_in_use);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> + vcpu->arch.has_run_once = true;
>>> I have a few concerns regarding this:
>>>
>>> 1. Moving has_run_once = true here seems very arbitrary to me - kvm_timer_enable()
>>> and kvm_arm_pmu_v3_enable(), below it, can both fail because of erroneous user
>>> values. If there's a reason why the assignment cannot be moved at the end of the
>>> function, I think it should be clearly stated in a comment for the people who
>>> might be tempted to write similar tests for the timer or pmu.
>> Setting has_run_once = true at the entry of the function looks to me
>> even more arbitrary. I agree with you that eventually has_run_once may
>
> Or it could be it's there to prevent the user from calling
> kvm_vgic_map_resources() a second time after it failed. This is what I'm concerned
> about and I think deserves more investigation.

I have reworked my kvm selftests to live without that change.

Thanks

Eric
>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>> be moved at the very end but maybe this can be done later once timer,
>> pmu tests haven ben written
>>> 2. There are many ways that kvm_vgic_map_resources() can fail, other than
>>> incorrect user settings. I started digging into how
>>> kvm_vgic_map_resources()->vgic_v2_map_resources() can fail for a VGIC V2 and this
>>> is what I managed to find before I gave up:
>>>
>>> * vgic_init() can fail in:
>>>     - kvm_vgic_dist_init()
>>>     - vgic_v3_init()
>>>     - kvm_vgic_setup_default_irq_routing()
>>> * vgic_register_dist_iodev() can fail in:
>>>     - vgic_v3_init_dist_iodev()
>>>     - kvm_io_bus_register_dev()(*)
>>> * kvm_phys_addr_ioremap() can fail in:
>>>     - kvm_mmu_topup_memory_cache()
>>>     - kvm_pgtable_stage2_map()
>> I changed the commit msg so that "incorrect user settings" sounds as an
>> example.
>>> So if any of the functions below fail, are we 100% sure it is safe to allow the
>>> user to execute kvm_vgic_map_resources() again?
>> I think additional tests will confirm this. However at the moment,
>> moving the assignment, which does not look wrong to me, allows to
>> greatly simplify the tests so I would tend to say that it is worth.
>>> (*) It looks to me like kvm_io_bus_register_dev() doesn't take into account a
>>> caller that tries to register the same device address range and it will create
>>> another identical range. Is this intentional? Is it a bug that should be fixed? Or
>>> am I misunderstanding the function?
>> doesn't kvm_io_bus_cmp() do the check?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Eric
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alex
>>>> +
>>>> ret = kvm_timer_enable(vcpu);
>>>> if (ret)
>>>> return ret;
>

2021-03-12 17:31:10

by Eric Auger

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] KVM: arm64: vgic-v3: Expose GICR_TYPER.Last for userspace

Hi Alexandru,

On 1/20/21 5:13 PM, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On 1/14/21 10:16 AM, Auger Eric wrote:
>> Hi Alexandru,
>>
>> On 1/12/21 6:02 PM, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
>>> Hi Eric,
>>>
>>> On 12/12/20 6:50 PM, Eric Auger wrote:
>>>> Commit 23bde34771f1 ("KVM: arm64: vgic-v3: Drop the
>>>> reporting of GICR_TYPER.Last for userspace") temporarily fixed
>>>> a bug identified when attempting to access the GICR_TYPER
>>>> register before the redistributor region setting but dropped
>>>> the support of the LAST bit. This patch restores its
>>>> support (if the redistributor region was set) while keeping the
>>>> code safe.
>>> I suppose the reason for emulating GICR_TYPER.Last is for architecture compliance,
>>> right? I think that should be in the commit message.
>> OK added this in the commit msg.
>>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c | 7 ++++++-
>>>> include/kvm/arm_vgic.h | 1 +
>>>> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
>>>> index 581f0f490000..2f9ef6058f6e 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/vgic/vgic-mmio-v3.c
>>>> @@ -277,6 +277,8 @@ static unsigned long vgic_uaccess_read_v3r_typer(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>>> gpa_t addr, unsigned int len)
>>>> {
>>>> unsigned long mpidr = kvm_vcpu_get_mpidr_aff(vcpu);
>>>> + struct vgic_cpu *vgic_cpu = &vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu;
>>>> + struct vgic_redist_region *rdreg = vgic_cpu->rdreg;
>>>> int target_vcpu_id = vcpu->vcpu_id;
>>>> u64 value;
>>>>
>>>> @@ -286,7 +288,9 @@ static unsigned long vgic_uaccess_read_v3r_typer(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>>> if (vgic_has_its(vcpu->kvm))
>>>> value |= GICR_TYPER_PLPIS;
>>>>
>>>> - /* reporting of the Last bit is not supported for userspace */
>>>> + if (rdreg && (vgic_cpu->rdreg_index == (rdreg->free_index - 1)))
>>>> + value |= GICR_TYPER_LAST;
>>>> +
>>>> return extract_bytes(value, addr & 7, len);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> @@ -714,6 +718,7 @@ int vgic_register_redist_iodev(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>>
>>>> vgic_cpu->rdreg = rdreg;
>>>> + vgic_cpu->rdreg_index = rdreg->free_index;
>>> What happens if the next redistributor region we register has the base address
>>> adjacent to this one?
>>>
>>> I'm really not familiar with the code, but is it not possible to create two
>>> Redistributor regions (via
>>> KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_ADDR(KVM_VGIC_V3_ADDR_TYPE_REDIST)) where the second
>>> Redistributor region start address is immediately after the last Redistributor in
>>> the preceding region?
>> KVM_VGIC_V3_ADDR_TYPE_REDIST only allows to create a single rdist
>> region. Only KVM_VGIC_V3_ADDR_TYPE_REDIST_REGION allows to register
>> several of them.
>>
>> with KVM_VGIC_V3_ADDR_TYPE_REDIST_REGION, it is possible to register
>> adjacent rdist regions. vgic_v3_rdist_free_slot() previously returned
>> the 1st rdist region where enough space remains for inserting the new
>> reg. We put the rdist at the free index there.
>>
>> But maybe I misunderstood your question?
>
> Yes, I think you did a good job at answering my poorly worded question.
>
> This is the case I am concerned about:
>
> 1. Userspace sets first redistributor base address to 0x0 via
> KVM_VGIC_V3_ADDR_TYPE_REDIST_REGION(count = 1, base = 0x0, flags = 0, index = 0).
>
> 2. Userspace sets first redistributor base address to 0x0 + 128K, immediately
> following the previous Redistributor.
>
> In that case the two Redistributors will be represented by two separate struct
> vgic_redist_region, but they are adjacent to one another and represent one
> contiguous memory region.
>
> From what I understand from your patch, GICR_TYPER.Last will be set for both
> Redistributors, when it should be set only for the second Redistributor. Does any
> of that make sense?

Please forgive me for not having replied before on this thread.

This is a valid concern. Nothing prevents the redistributor regions from
being contiguous although this is not the goal. Also nothing prevents
vcpu rdists to be laid out within a redist region in non ascending
order. Also redist regions with ascending indices may not have
increasing base addresses.

So this becomes a gas factory for emulating a single bit but I have
reworked this in v3 ;-)

Thanks

Eric





>
> Thanks,
> Alex
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Eric
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>> rd_base = rdreg->base + rdreg->free_index * KVM_VGIC_V3_REDIST_SIZE;
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
>>>> index a8d8fdcd3723..596c069263a7 100644
>>>> --- a/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
>>>> +++ b/include/kvm/arm_vgic.h
>>>> @@ -322,6 +322,7 @@ struct vgic_cpu {
>>>> */
>>>> struct vgic_io_device rd_iodev;
>>>> struct vgic_redist_region *rdreg;
>>>> + u32 rdreg_index;
>>>>
>>>> /* Contains the attributes and gpa of the LPI pending tables. */
>>>> u64 pendbaser;
>