Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
To:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>,
        Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>,
        Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>,
        Jayachandran C <jnair@caviumnetworks.com>,
        Jon Masters <jcm@redhat.com>,
        Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Subject: [PATCH v4 02/17] arm: KVM: Fix SMCCC handling of unimplemented SMC/HVC calls
Date:   Tue,  6 Feb 2018 17:56:06 +0000
Message-Id: <20180206175621.929-3-marc.zyngier@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180206175621.929-1-marc.zyngier@arm.com>
References: <20180206175621.929-1-marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

KVM doesn't follow the SMCCC when it comes to unimplemented calls,
and inject an UNDEF instead of returning an error. Since firmware
calls are now used for security mitigation, they are becoming more
common, and the undef is counter productive.

Instead, let's follow the SMCCC which states that -1 must be returned
to the caller when getting an unknown function number.

Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Tested-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
---
 arch/arm/kvm/handle_exit.c | 13 +++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/handle_exit.c b/arch/arm/kvm/handle_exit.c
index cf8bf6bf87c4..a4bf0f6f024a 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kvm/handle_exit.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kvm/handle_exit.c
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ static int handle_hvc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
 
 	ret = kvm_psci_call(vcpu);
 	if (ret < 0) {
-		kvm_inject_undefined(vcpu);
+		vcpu_set_reg(vcpu, 0, ~0UL);
 		return 1;
 	}
 
@@ -47,7 +47,16 @@ static int handle_hvc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
 
 static int handle_smc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
 {
-	kvm_inject_undefined(vcpu);
+	/*
+	 * "If an SMC instruction executed at Non-secure EL1 is
+	 * trapped to EL2 because HCR_EL2.TSC is 1, the exception is a
+	 * Trap exception, not a Secure Monitor Call exception [...]"
+	 *
+	 * We need to advance the PC after the trap, as it would
+	 * otherwise return to the same address...
+	 */
+	vcpu_set_reg(vcpu, 0, ~0UL);
+	kvm_skip_instr(vcpu, kvm_vcpu_trap_il_is32bit(vcpu));
 	return 1;
 }
 
-- 
2.14.2