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:   Fri, 27 Nov 2020 11:53:05 +0000
From:   Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@arm.com>,
        Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@arm.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
        Quentin Perret <qperret@google.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 03/14] KVM: arm64: Kill 32-bit vCPUs on systems with
 mismatched EL0 support
Message-ID: <20201127115304.GB20564@willie-the-truck>
References: <20201124155039.13804-1-will@kernel.org>
 <20201124155039.13804-4-will@kernel.org>
 <9bd06b193e7fb859a1207bb1302b7597@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9bd06b193e7fb859a1207bb1302b7597@kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 10:26:47AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2020-11-24 15:50, Will Deacon wrote:
> > If a vCPU is caught running 32-bit code on a system with mismatched
> > support at EL0, then we should kill it.
> > 
> > Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 11 ++++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > index 5750ec34960e..d322ac0f4a8e 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> > @@ -633,6 +633,15 @@ static void check_vcpu_requests(struct kvm_vcpu
> > *vcpu)
> >  	}
> >  }
> > 
> > +static bool vcpu_mode_is_bad_32bit(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > +{
> > +	if (likely(!vcpu_mode_is_32bit(vcpu)))
> > +		return false;
> > +
> > +	return !system_supports_32bit_el0() ||
> > +		static_branch_unlikely(&arm64_mismatched_32bit_el0);
> > +}
> > +
> >  /**
> >   * kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run - the main VCPU run function to execute
> > guest code
> >   * @vcpu:	The VCPU pointer
> > @@ -816,7 +825,7 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >  		 * with the asymmetric AArch32 case), return to userspace with
> >  		 * a fatal error.
> >  		 */
> > -		if (!system_supports_32bit_el0() && vcpu_mode_is_32bit(vcpu)) {
> > +		if (vcpu_mode_is_bad_32bit(vcpu)) {
> >  			/*
> >  			 * As we have caught the guest red-handed, decide that
> >  			 * it isn't fit for purpose anymore by making the vcpu
> 
> Given the new definition of system_supports_32bit_el0() in the previous
> patch,
> why do we need this patch at all?

I think the check is still needed, as this is an unusual case where we
want to reject the mismatched system. For example, imagine
'arm64_mismatched_32bit_el0' is true and we're on a mismatched system: in
this case system_supports_32bit_el0() will return 'true' because we
allow 32-bit applications to run, we support the 32-bit personality etc.

However, we still want to terminate 32-bit vCPUs if we spot them in this
situation, so we have to check for:

	!system_supports_32bit_el0() ||
	static_branch_unlikely(&arm64_mismatched_32bit_el0)

so that we only allow 32-bit vCPUs when all of the physical CPUs support
it at EL0.

I could make this clearer either by adding a comment, or avoiding
system_supports_32bit_el0() entirely here and just checking the
sanitised SYS_ID_AA64PFR0_EL1 register directly instead.

What do you prefer?

Will