DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com E8FBA4E339
From: Bandan Das <bsd@redhat.com>
To: Christoffer Dall <cdall@linaro.org>
Cc: Jintack Lim <jintack@cs.columbia.edu>, christoffer.dall@linaro.org,
        marc.zyngier@arm.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, rkrcmar@redhat.com,
        linux@armlinux.org.uk, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com,
        vladimir.murzin@arm.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, mark.rutland@arm.com,
        james.morse@arm.com, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, kevin.brodsky@arm.com,
        wcohen@redhat.com, shankerd@codeaurora.org, geoff@infradead.org,
        andre.przywara@arm.com, eric.auger@redhat.com,
        anna-maria@linutronix.de, shihwei@cs.columbia.edu,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 07/55] KVM: arm/arm64: Add virtual EL2 state emulation framework
References: <1483943091-1364-1-git-send-email-jintack@cs.columbia.edu>
        <1483943091-1364-8-git-send-email-jintack@cs.columbia.edu>
        <jpg37bj1nj6.fsf@linux.bootlegged.copy> <20170602115140.GB397@cbox>
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 13:36:23 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20170602115140.GB397@cbox> (Christoffer Dall's message of "Fri,
        2 Jun 2017 13:51:40 +0200")
Message-ID: <jpg8tlal2aw.fsf@linux.bootlegged.copy>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2333
Lines: 67

Christoffer Dall <cdall@linaro.org> writes:

> On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 04:05:49PM -0400, Bandan Das wrote:
>> Jintack Lim <jintack@cs.columbia.edu> writes:
>> ...
>> > +/**
>> > + * kvm_arm_setup_shadow_state -- prepare shadow state based on emulated mode
>> > + * @vcpu: The VCPU pointer
>> > + */
>> > +void kvm_arm_setup_shadow_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> > +{
>> > +	struct kvm_cpu_context *ctxt = &vcpu->arch.ctxt;
>> > +
>> > +	ctxt->hw_pstate = *vcpu_cpsr(vcpu);
>> > +	ctxt->hw_sys_regs = ctxt->sys_regs;
>> > +	ctxt->hw_sp_el1 = ctxt->gp_regs.sp_el1;
>> > +}
>> > +
>> > +/**
>> > + * kvm_arm_restore_shadow_state -- write back shadow state from guest
>> > + * @vcpu: The VCPU pointer
>> > + */
>> > +void kvm_arm_restore_shadow_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> > +{
>> > +	struct kvm_cpu_context *ctxt = &vcpu->arch.ctxt;
>> > +
>> > +	*vcpu_cpsr(vcpu) = ctxt->hw_pstate;
>> > +	ctxt->gp_regs.sp_el1 = ctxt->hw_sp_el1;
>> > +}
>> > +
>> > +void kvm_arm_init_cpu_context(kvm_cpu_context_t *cpu_ctxt)
>> > +{
>> > +	cpu_ctxt->hw_sys_regs = &cpu_ctxt->sys_regs[0];
>> > +}
>> 
>> 
>> IIUC, the *_shadow_state() functions will set hw_* pointers to
>> either point to the "real" state or the shadow state to manage L2 ?
>> Maybe, it might make sense to make these function names a little more
>> generic since they are not dealing with setting the shadow state
>> alone.
>> 
>
> The notion of 'shadow state' is borrowed from shadow page tables, in
> which you always load some 'shadow copy' of the 'real value' into the
> hardware, so the shadow state is the one that's used for execution by
> the hardware.
>
> The shadow state may be the same as the VCPU's EL1 state, for example,
> or it may be a modified version of the VCPU's EL2 state, for example.

Yes, it can be the same. Although, as you said above, "shadow" conventionally
refers to the latter. When it's pointing to EL1 state, it's not really
shadow state anymore.

> If you have better suggestions for naming, we're open to that though.
>

Oh nothing specifically, I just felt like "shadow" in the function name
could be confusing. Borrowing from kvm_arm_init_cpu_context(), 
how about kvm_arm_setup/restore_cpu_context()  ?

BTW, on a separate note, we might as well get away with the typedef and
call struct kvm_cpu_context directly.

> Thanks,
> -Christoffer