Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 23 Nov 2020 18:00:50 +0000
Message-ID: <87a6v854x9.wl-maz@kernel.org>
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To:     David Brazdil <dbrazdil@google.com>
Cc:     kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry.kdev@gmail.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>,
        Andrew Scull <ascull@google.com>,
        Andrew Walbran <qwandor@google.com>, kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/24] kvm: arm64: Add SMC handler in nVHE EL2
In-Reply-To: <20201116204318.63987-9-dbrazdil@google.com>
References: <20201116204318.63987-1-dbrazdil@google.com>
        <20201116204318.63987-9-dbrazdil@google.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue)
 FLIM-LB/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL-LB/10.8 Emacs/27.1
 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 20:43:02 +0000,
David Brazdil <dbrazdil@google.com> wrote:
> 
> Add handler of host SMCs in KVM nVHE trap handler. Forward all SMCs to
> EL3 and propagate the result back to EL1. This is done in preparation
> for validating host SMCs in KVM nVHE protected mode.
> 
> The implementation assumes that firmware uses SMCCC v1.2 or older. That
> means x0-x17 can be used both for arguments and results, other GPRs are
> preserved.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Brazdil <dbrazdil@google.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/host.S     | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/hyp-main.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 64 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/host.S b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/host.S
> index ed27f06a31ba..52dae5cd5a28 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/host.S
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/host.S
> @@ -183,3 +183,41 @@ SYM_CODE_START(__kvm_hyp_host_vector)
>  	invalid_host_el1_vect			// FIQ 32-bit EL1
>  	invalid_host_el1_vect			// Error 32-bit EL1
>  SYM_CODE_END(__kvm_hyp_host_vector)
> +
> +/*
> + * Forward SMC with arguments in struct kvm_cpu_context, and
> + * store the result into the same struct. Assumes SMCCC 1.2 or older.
> + *
> + * x0: struct kvm_cpu_context*
> + */
> +SYM_CODE_START(__kvm_hyp_host_forward_smc)
> +	/*
> +	 * Use x18 to keep a pointer to the host context because x18
> +	 * is callee-saved SMCCC but not in AAPCS64.
> +	 */
> +	mov	x18, x0
> +
> +	ldp	x0, x1,   [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(0)]
> +	ldp	x2, x3,   [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(2)]
> +	ldp	x4, x5,   [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(4)]
> +	ldp	x6, x7,   [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(6)]
> +	ldp	x8, x9,   [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(8)]
> +	ldp	x10, x11, [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(10)]
> +	ldp	x12, x13, [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(12)]
> +	ldp	x14, x15, [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(14)]
> +	ldp	x16, x17, [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(16)]
> +
> +	smc	#0
> +
> +	stp	x0, x1,   [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(0)]
> +	stp	x2, x3,   [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(2)]
> +	stp	x4, x5,   [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(4)]
> +	stp	x6, x7,   [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(6)]
> +	stp	x8, x9,   [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(8)]
> +	stp	x10, x11, [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(10)]
> +	stp	x12, x13, [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(12)]
> +	stp	x14, x15, [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(14)]
> +	stp	x16, x17, [x18, #CPU_XREG_OFFSET(16)]

This is going to be really good for CPUs that need to use ARCH_WA1 for
their Spectre-v2 mitigation... :-( If that's too expensive, we may
have to reduce the number of save/restored registers, but I'm worried
the battle is already lost by the time we reach this (the host trap
path is already a huge hammer).

Eventually, we'll have to insert the mitigation in the vectors anyway,
just like we have on the guest exit path. Boo.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.