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;
References: <20181107171031.22573-1-alex.bennee@linaro.org> <CAFEAcA8LL0uC6o1V3W2T=2P47xZ0zGhMR5mEE+x=8qwmDKZL_g@mail.gmail.com> <CAFEAcA8mKCTeswpiznVWR3kSfVfjbot1aTSfemFVNjzXYdSJwA@mail.gmail.com>
User-agent: mu4e 1.1.0; emacs 26.1.50
From:   Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
To:     Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc:     kvm-devel <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        arm-mail-list <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
        Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] KVM: arm64: don't single-step for non-emulated faults
In-reply-to: <CAFEAcA8mKCTeswpiznVWR3kSfVfjbot1aTSfemFVNjzXYdSJwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 08 Nov 2018 12:26:16 +0000
Message-ID: <87sh0b69hz.fsf@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:

> On 7 November 2018 at 17:39, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wro=
te:
>> On 7 November 2018 at 17:10, Alex Benn=C3=A9e <alex.bennee@linaro.org> w=
rote:
>>> Not all faults handled by handle_exit are instruction emulations. For
>>> example a ESR_ELx_EC_IABT will result in the page tables being updated
>>> but the instruction that triggered the fault hasn't actually executed
>>> yet. We use the simple heuristic of checking for a changed PC before
>>> seeing if kvm_arm_handle_step_debug wants to claim we stepped an
>>> instruction.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Benn=C3=A9e <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
>>
>> What's the rationale for this change? Presumably it's fixing
>> something, but the commit message doesn't really say what...
>>
>> This feels to me like it's working around the fact that
>> we've separated two things ("advance pc (or set it if we're
>> going to make the guest take an exception)" and "notice that
>> we have completed a single step") that should be handled
>> at one point in the code.
>
> ...so for instance if your guest PC is at the entrypoint for
> an exception, and you singlestep and take the same exception
> again, this should count as a single step completed, even
> though the PC has not changed. Granted, that's a little
> contrived, but it can happen in cases where the guest gets
> completely confused and is sitting in a tight loop taking
> exceptions because there's no ram at the vector table
> address, or whatever.

The alternative I thought of as I was hacking^H^H^H^H^H^H carefully
engineering this was to expand arm_exit_handlers[] and tag each handler
that was an instruction emulation and gate on that.

--
Alex Benn=C3=A9e