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;
Date:   Wed, 17 Apr 2019 18:20:11 +0100
From:   Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Kristina Martsenko <kristina.martsenko@arm.com>,
        Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana.radhakrishnan@arm.com>,
        Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@arm.com>,
        kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/5] KVM: arm64: Add a vcpu flag to control ptrauth
 for guest
Message-ID: <20190417172010.GE3567@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <1555039236-10608-1-git-send-email-amit.kachhap@arm.com>
 <1555039236-10608-2-git-send-email-amit.kachhap@arm.com>
 <eeeebc4d-f061-42a5-954d-40161bbed23a@arm.com>
 <ef1eb326-cd3a-4033-813d-ceae262b4e23@arm.com>
 <239c5d74-221e-cf8c-2c41-80db016bdc2b@arm.com>
 <20190417145255.GB3567@e103592.cambridge.arm.com>
 <a04c6bfd-fd6a-8ff9-a66a-3391af53afb5@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a04c6bfd-fd6a-8ff9-a66a-3391af53afb5@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 04:54:32PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 17/04/2019 15:52, Dave Martin wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 03:19:11PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >> On 17/04/2019 14:08, Amit Daniel Kachhap wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On 4/17/19 2:05 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >>>> On 12/04/2019 04:20, Amit Daniel Kachhap wrote:
> >>>>> A per vcpu flag is added to check if pointer authentication is
> >>>>> enabled for the vcpu or not. This flag may be enabled according to
> >>>>> the necessary user policies and host capabilities.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This patch also adds a helper to check the flag.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@arm.com>
> >>>>> Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> >>>>> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
> >>>>> Cc: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@arm.com>
> >>>>> Cc: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Changes since v8:
> >>>>> * Added a new per vcpu flag which will store Pointer Authentication enable
> >>>>>    status instead of checking them again. [Dave Martin]
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 4 ++++
> >>>>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >>>>> index 9d57cf8..31dbc7c 100644
> >>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> >>>>> @@ -355,10 +355,14 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_arch {
> >>>>>   #define KVM_ARM64_HOST_SVE_ENABLED	(1 << 4) /* SVE enabled for EL0 */
> >>>>>   #define KVM_ARM64_GUEST_HAS_SVE		(1 << 5) /* SVE exposed to guest */
> >>>>>   #define KVM_ARM64_VCPU_SVE_FINALIZED	(1 << 6) /* SVE config completed */
> >>>>> +#define KVM_ARM64_GUEST_HAS_PTRAUTH	(1 << 7) /* PTRAUTH exposed to guest */
> >>>>>   
> >>>>>   #define vcpu_has_sve(vcpu) (system_supports_sve() && \
> >>>>>   			    ((vcpu)->arch.flags & KVM_ARM64_GUEST_HAS_SVE))
> >>>>>   
> >>>>> +#define vcpu_has_ptrauth(vcpu)	\
> >>>>> +			((vcpu)->arch.flags & KVM_ARM64_GUEST_HAS_PTRAUTH)
> >>>>> +
> >>>>
> >>>> Just as for SVE, please first check that the system has PTRAUTH.
> >>>> Something like:
> >>>>
> >>>> 		(cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_GENERIC_AUTH_ARCH) && \
> >>>> 		 ((vcpu)->arch.flags & KVM_ARM64_GUEST_HAS_PTRAUTH))
> >>>
> >>> In the subsequent patches, vcpu->arch.flags is only set to 
> >>> KVM_ARM64_GUEST_HAS_PTRAUTH when all host capability check conditions 
> >>> matches such as system_supports_address_auth(), 
> >>> system_supports_generic_auth() so doing them again is repetitive in my view.
> >>
> >> It isn't the setting of the flag I care about, but the check of that
> >> flag. Checking a flag for a feature that cannot be used on the running
> >> system should have a zero cost, which isn't the case here.
> >>
> >> Granted, the impact should be minimal and it looks like it mostly happen
> >> on the slow path, but at the very least it would be consistent. So even
> >> if you don't buy my argument about efficiency, please change it in the
> >> name of consistency.
> > 
> > One of the annoyances here is there is no single static key for ptrauth.
> > 
> > I'm assuming we don't want to check both static keys (for address and
> > generic auth) on hot paths.
> 
> They both just branches, so I don't see why not. Of course, for people
> using a lesser compiler (gcc 4.8 or clang), things will suck. But they
> got it coming anyway.

I seem to recall Christoffer expressing concerns about this at some
point: even unconditional branches branches to a fixed address are not
free (or even correctly predicted).

I don't think any compiler can elide static key checks of merge them
together.

Maybe I am misremembering.

Cheers
---Dave