Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 14:42:07 +0200
From: Christoffer Dall <cdall@linaro.org>
To: Jintack Lim <jintack.lim@linaro.org>
Cc: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, christoffer.dall@linaro.org,
        marc.zyngier@arm.com, corbet@lwn.net, pbonzini@redhat.com,
        rkrcmar@redhat.com, linux@armlinux.org.uk, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
        will.deacon@arm.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, mchehab@kernel.org,
        cov@codeaurora.org, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, david.daney@cavium.com,
        mark.rutland@arm.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, stefan@hello-penguin.com,
        andy.gross@linaro.org, wcohen@redhat.com, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org,
        shankerd@codeaurora.org, vladimir.murzin@arm.com, james.morse@arm.com,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 36/38] KVM: arm64: Respect virtual HCR_EL2.TVM and
 TRVM settings
Message-ID: <20170731124207.GV5176@cbox>
References: <1500397144-16232-1-git-send-email-jintack.lim@linaro.org>
 <1500397144-16232-37-git-send-email-jintack.lim@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1500397144-16232-37-git-send-email-jintack.lim@linaro.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2477
Lines: 77

On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:59:02AM -0500, Jintack Lim wrote:
> Forward the EL1 virtual memory register traps to the virtual EL2 if they
> are not coming from the virtual EL2 and the virtual HCR_EL2.TVM or TRVM
> bit is set.

I noticed that all these recursive patches don't change how we program
the physical HCR_EL2.  Is that because we always respect the guest
hypervisor's configuration of the virtual HCR_EL2 into the physical one
when running the VM?

If so, perhaps we should add a single sentence in the commit messages
about that.

> 
> This is for recursive nested virtualization.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jintack Lim <jintack.lim@linaro.org>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> index 3559cf7..3e4ec5e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> @@ -135,6 +135,27 @@ static inline bool el12_reg(struct sys_reg_params *p)
>  	return (p->Op1 == 5);
>  }
>  
> +/* This function is to support the recursive nested virtualization */

it's just 'recursive nested virtualization', not 'the recursive nested
virtualization', and I also think 'recursive virtualization' is
sufficient.

> +static bool forward_vm_traps(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct sys_reg_params *p)
> +{
> +	u64 hcr_el2 = vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, HCR_EL2);
> +
> +	/* If a trap comes from the virtual EL2, the host hypervisor handles. */
> +	if (vcpu_mode_el2(vcpu))
> +		return false;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * If the virtual HCR_EL2.TVM or TRVM bit is set, we need to foward
> +	 * this trap to the virtual EL2.
> +	 */
> +	if ((hcr_el2 & HCR_TVM) && p->is_write)
> +		return true;
> +	else if ((hcr_el2 & HCR_TRVM) && !p->is_write)
> +		return true;
> +
> +	return false;
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Generic accessor for VM registers. Only called as long as HCR_TVM
>   * is set. If the guest enables the MMU, we stop trapping the VM
> @@ -152,6 +173,9 @@ static bool access_vm_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>  	if (el12_reg(p) && forward_nv_traps(vcpu))
>  		return kvm_inject_nested_sync(vcpu, kvm_vcpu_get_hsr(vcpu));
>  
> +	if (!el12_reg(p) && forward_vm_traps(vcpu, p))
> +		return kvm_inject_nested_sync(vcpu, kvm_vcpu_get_hsr(vcpu));

why do you need the !el12_reg(p) check here?

> +
>  	/*
>  	 * Redirect EL1 register accesses to the corresponding EL2 registers if
>  	 * they are meant to access EL2 registers.
> -- 
> 1.9.1
> 

Thanks,
-Christoffer