Reply-To: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/21] KVM: arm64: Add SDEI virtualization
 infrastructure
To:     Eric Auger <eauger@redhat.com>, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Cc:     maz@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, will@kernel.org
References: <20210815001352.81927-1-gshan@redhat.com>
 <20210815001352.81927-3-gshan@redhat.com>
 <8108db38-e0fa-774b-c884-70b8606a3ab9@redhat.com>
From:   Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <dcb8e2db-7189-b241-3e74-39257d282363@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Jan 2022 17:20:37 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8108db38-e0fa-774b-c884-70b8606a3ab9@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi Eric,

On 11/9/21 11:45 PM, Eric Auger wrote:
> On 8/15/21 2:13 AM, Gavin Shan wrote:
>> Software Delegated Exception Interface (SDEI) provides a mechanism for
>> registering and servicing system events. Those system events are high
>> priority events, which must be serviced immediately. It's going to be
>> used by Asynchronous Page Fault (APF) to deliver notification from KVM
>> to guest. It's noted that SDEI is defined by ARM DEN0054A specification.
>>
>> This introduces SDEI virtualization infrastructure where the SDEI events
>> are registered and manuplated by the guest through hypercall. The SDEI
> manipulated

Thanks, It will be corrected in next respin.

>> event is delivered to one specific vCPU by KVM once it's raised. This
>> introduces data structures to represent the needed objects to implement
>> the feature, which is highlighted as below. As those objects could be
>> migrated between VMs, these data structures are partially exported to
>> user space.
>>
>>     * kvm_sdei_event
>>       SDEI events are exported from KVM so that guest is able to register
>>       and manuplate.
> manipulate

Thanks, It will be fixed in next respin. I'm uncertain how the wrong
spelling are still existing even though I had spelling check with
"scripts/checkpatch.pl --codespell".

>>     * kvm_sdei_kvm_event
>>       SDEI event that has been registered by guest.
> I would recomment to revisit the names. Why kvm event? Why not
> registered_event instead that actually would tell what it its. also you
> have kvm twice in the struct name.

Yep, I think I need reconsider the struct names. The primary reason
why I had the names are keeping the struct names short enough while
being easy to be identified: "kvm_sdei" is the prefix. How about to
have the following struct names?

     kvm_sdei_event             events exported from KVM to userspace
     kvm_sdei_kevent            events registered (associated) to KVM
     kvm_sdei_vevent            events associated with vCPU
     kvm_sdei_vcpu              vCPU context for event delivery

>>     * kvm_sdei_kvm_vcpu
> Didn't you mean kvm_sdei_vcpu_event instead?

Yeah, you're correct. I was supposed to explain kvm_sdei_vcpu_event here.

>>       SDEI event that has been delivered to the target vCPU.
>>     * kvm_sdei_kvm
>>       Place holder of exported and registered SDEI events.
>>     * kvm_sdei_vcpu
>>       Auxiliary object to save the preempted context during SDEI event
>>       delivery.
>>
>> The error is returned for all SDEI hypercalls for now. They will be
>> implemented by the subsequent patches.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>   arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h      |   6 +
>>   arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_sdei.h      | 118 +++++++++++++++
>>   arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h      |   1 +
>>   arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm_sdei.h |  60 ++++++++
>>   arch/arm64/kvm/Makefile                |   2 +-
>>   arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c                   |   7 +
>>   arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c            |  18 +++
>>   arch/arm64/kvm/sdei.c                  | 198 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   8 files changed, 409 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>   create mode 100644 arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_sdei.h
>>   create mode 100644 arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm_sdei.h
>>   create mode 100644 arch/arm64/kvm/sdei.c
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> index 41911585ae0c..aedf901e1ec7 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> @@ -113,6 +113,9 @@ struct kvm_arch {
>>   	/* Interrupt controller */
>>   	struct vgic_dist	vgic;
>>   
>> +	/* SDEI support */
> does not bring much. Why not reusing the commit msg explanation? Here
> and below.

I would drop the comment in next respin because I want to avoid too much
comments to be embedded into "struct kvm_arch". The struct is already
huge in terms of number of fields.

>> +	struct kvm_sdei_kvm *sdei;
>> +
>>   	/* Mandated version of PSCI */
>>   	u32 psci_version;
>>   
>> @@ -339,6 +342,9 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_arch {
>>   	 * here.
>>   	 */
>>   
>> +	/* SDEI support */
>> +	struct kvm_sdei_vcpu *sdei;> +
>>   	/*
>>   	 * Guest registers we preserve during guest debugging.
>>   	 *
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_sdei.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_sdei.h
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..b0abc13a0256
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_sdei.h
>> @@ -0,0 +1,118 @@
>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
>> +/*
>> + * Definitions of various KVM SDEI events.
>> + *
>> + * Copyright (C) 2021 Red Hat, Inc.
>> + *
>> + * Author(s): Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
>> + */
>> +
>> +#ifndef __ARM64_KVM_SDEI_H__
>> +#define __ARM64_KVM_SDEI_H__
>> +
>> +#include <uapi/linux/arm_sdei.h>> +#include <uapi/asm/kvm_sdei.h>
>> +#include <linux/bitmap.h>
>> +#include <linux/list.h>
>> +#include <linux/spinlock.h>
>> +
>> +struct kvm_sdei_event {
>> +	struct kvm_sdei_event_state		state;
>> +	struct kvm				*kvm;
>> +	struct list_head			link;
>> +};
>> +
>> +struct kvm_sdei_kvm_event {
>> +	struct kvm_sdei_kvm_event_state		state;
>> +	struct kvm_sdei_event			*kse;
>> +	struct kvm				*kvm;
> can't you reuse the kvm handle in state?

Nope, there is no kvm handle in @state.

>> +	struct list_head			link;
>> +};
>> +
>> +struct kvm_sdei_vcpu_event {
>> +	struct kvm_sdei_vcpu_event_state	state;
>> +	struct kvm_sdei_kvm_event		*kske;
>> +	struct kvm_vcpu				*vcpu;
>> +	struct list_head			link;
>> +};
>> +
>> +struct kvm_sdei_kvm {
>> +	spinlock_t		lock;
>> +	struct list_head	events;		/* kvm_sdei_event */
>> +	struct list_head	kvm_events;	/* kvm_sdei_kvm_event */
>> +};
>> +
>> +struct kvm_sdei_vcpu {
>> +	spinlock_t                      lock;
>> +	struct kvm_sdei_vcpu_state      state;
> could you explain the fields below?

As defined by the specification, each SDEI event is given priority: critical
or normal priority. The priority affects how the SDEI event is delivered.
The critical event can preempt the normal one, but the reverse thing can't
be done.

>> +	struct kvm_sdei_vcpu_event      *critical_event;
>> +	struct kvm_sdei_vcpu_event      *normal_event;
>> +	struct list_head                critical_events;
>> +	struct list_head                normal_events;
>> +};
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * According to SDEI specification (v1.0), the event number spans 32-bits
>> + * and the lower 24-bits are used as the (real) event number. I don't
>> + * think we can use that much SDEI numbers in one system. So we reserve
>> + * two bits from the 24-bits real event number, to indicate its types:
>> + * physical event and virtual event. One reserved bit is enough for now,
>> + * but two bits are reserved for possible extension in future.
> I think this assumption is worth to be mentionned in the commit msg.

Sure, I will explain it in the commit log in next respin.

>> + *
>> + * The physical events are owned by underly firmware while the virtual
> underly?

s/underly firmware/firmware in next respin.

>> + * events are used by VMM and KVM.
>> + */
>> +#define KVM_SDEI_EV_NUM_TYPE_SHIFT	22
>> +#define KVM_SDEI_EV_NUM_TYPE_MASK	3
>> +#define KVM_SDEI_EV_NUM_TYPE_PHYS	0
>> +#define KVM_SDEI_EV_NUM_TYPE_VIRT	1
>> +
>> +static inline bool kvm_sdei_is_valid_event_num(unsigned long num)
> the name of the function does does not really describe what it does. It
> actually checks the sdei is a virtual one. suggest kvm_sdei_is_virtual?

The header file is only used by KVM where the virtual SDEI event is the
only concern. However, kvm_sdei_is_virtual() is a better name.

>> +{
>> +	unsigned long type;
>> +
>> +	if (num >> 32)
>> +		return false;
>> +
>> +	type = (num >> KVM_SDEI_EV_NUM_TYPE_SHIFT) & KVM_SDEI_EV_NUM_TYPE_MASK;
> I think the the mask generally is applied before shifting. See
> include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h

Ok, I will adopt the style in next respin.

>> +	if (type != KVM_SDEI_EV_NUM_TYPE_VIRT)
>> +		return false;
>> +
>> +	return true;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* Accessors for the registration or enablement states of KVM event */
>> +#define KVM_SDEI_FLAG_FUNC(field)					   \
>> +static inline bool kvm_sdei_is_##field(struct kvm_sdei_kvm_event *kske,	   \
>> +				       unsigned int index)		   \
>> +{									   \
>> +	return !!test_bit(index, (void *)(kske->state.field));		   \
>> +}									   \
>> +									   \
>> +static inline bool kvm_sdei_empty_##field(struct kvm_sdei_kvm_event *kske) \
> nit: s/empty/none ?

"empty" is sticky to bitmap_empty(), but "none" here looks better :)

>> +{									   \
>> +	return bitmap_empty((void *)(kske->state.field),		   \
>> +			    KVM_SDEI_MAX_VCPUS);			   \
>> +}									   \
>> +static inline void kvm_sdei_set_##field(struct kvm_sdei_kvm_event *kske,   \
>> +					unsigned int index)		   \
>> +{									   \
>> +	set_bit(index, (void *)(kske->state.field));			   \
>> +}									   \
>> +static inline void kvm_sdei_clear_##field(struct kvm_sdei_kvm_event *kske, \
>> +					  unsigned int index)		   \
>> +{									   \
>> +	clear_bit(index, (void *)(kske->state.field));			   \
>> +}
>> +
>> +KVM_SDEI_FLAG_FUNC(registered)
>> +KVM_SDEI_FLAG_FUNC(enabled)
>> +
>> +/* APIs */
>> +void kvm_sdei_init_vm(struct kvm *kvm);
>> +void kvm_sdei_create_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>> +int kvm_sdei_hypercall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>> +void kvm_sdei_destroy_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
>> +void kvm_sdei_destroy_vm(struct kvm *kvm);
>> +
>> +#endif /* __ARM64_KVM_SDEI_H__ */
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
>> index b3edde68bc3e..e1b200bb6482 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
>> @@ -36,6 +36,7 @@
>>   #include <linux/types.h>
>>   #include <asm/ptrace.h>
>>   #include <asm/sve_context.h>
>> +#include <asm/kvm_sdei.h>
>>   
>>   #define __KVM_HAVE_GUEST_DEBUG
>>   #define __KVM_HAVE_IRQ_LINE
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm_sdei.h b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm_sdei.h
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..8928027023f6
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm_sdei.h
>> @@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 WITH Linux-syscall-note */
>> +/*
>> + * Definitions of various KVM SDEI event states.
>> + *
>> + * Copyright (C) 2021 Red Hat, Inc.
>> + *
>> + * Author(s): Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
>> + */
>> +
>> +#ifndef _UAPI__ASM_KVM_SDEI_H
>> +#define _UAPI__ASM_KVM_SDEI_H
>> +
>> +#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>> +#include <linux/types.h>
>> +
>> +#define KVM_SDEI_MAX_VCPUS	512
>> +#define KVM_SDEI_INVALID_NUM	0
>> +#define KVM_SDEI_DEFAULT_NUM	0x40400000
> 
> The motivation behind introducing such uapi should be clearer (besides
> just telling this aims at migrating). To me atm, this justification does
> not make possible to understand if those structs are well suited. You
> should document the migration process I think.
> 
> I would remove _state suffix in all of them.

I think so. I will add document "Documentation/virt/kvm/arm/sdei.rst" to
explain the design and the corresponding data structs for migration. However,
I would keep "state" suffix because I used this field as indicator for
data structs to be migrated. However, the structs should be named accordingly
since they're embedded to their parent structs:

    kvm_sdei_event_state
    kvm_sdei_kevent_state
    kvm_sdei_vevent_state
    kvm_sdei_vcpu_state

>> +
>> +struct kvm_sdei_event_state {
> This is not really a state because it cannot be changed by the guest,
> right? I would remove _state and just call it kvm_sdei_event

The name kvm_sdei_event will be conflicting with same struct, defined
in include/asm/kvm_sdei.h. Lets keep "_state" as I explained. I use
the suffix as indicator to structs which need migration even though
they're not changeable.

>> +	__u64	num;
>> +
>> +	__u8	type;
>> +	__u8	signaled;
>> +	__u8	priority;
> you need some padding to be 64-bit aligned. See in generic or aarch64
> kvm.h for instance.

Sure.

>> +};
>> +
>> +struct kvm_sdei_kvm_event_state {
> I would rename into kvm_sdei_registered_event or smth alike

As above, it will be conflicting with its parent struct, defined
in include/asm/kvm_sdei.h

>> +	__u64	num;
> how does this num differ from the event state one?

@num is same thing to that in kvm_sdei_event_state. It's used as
index to retrieve corresponding kvm_sdei_event_state. One kvm_sdei_event_state
instance can be dereferenced by kvm_sdei_kvm_event_state and kvm_sdei_kvm_vcpu_event_state.
It's why we don't embed kvm_sdei_event_state in them, to avoid duplicated
traffic in migration.

>> +	__u32	refcount;
>> +
>> +	__u8	route_mode;
> padding also here. See for instance
> https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/20200911145446.2f9f5eb8@w520.home/T/#m7bac2ff2b28a68f8d2196ec452afd3e46682760d
> 
> Maybe put the the route_mode field and refcount at the end and add one
> byte of padding?
> 
> Why can't we have a single sdei_event uapi representation where route
> mode defaults to unset and refcount defaults to 0 when not registered?
> 

Ok. I will fix the padding and alignment in next respin. The @route_affinity
can be changed on request from the guest. The @refcount helps to prevent the
event from being unregistered if it's still dereferenced by kvm_sdei_vcpu_event_state.

>> +	__u64	route_affinity;
>> +	__u64	entries[KVM_SDEI_MAX_VCPUS];
>> +	__u64	params[KVM_SDEI_MAX_VCPUS];
> I would rename entries into ep_address and params into ep_arg.

Ok, but what does "ep" means? I barely guess it's "entry point".
I'm not sure if you're talking about "PE" here.

>> +	__u64	registered[KVM_SDEI_MAX_VCPUS/64];
> maybe add a comment along with KVM_SDEI_MAX_VCPUS that it must be a
> multiple of 64 (or a build check)
>

Sure.
  
>> +	__u64	enabled[KVM_SDEI_MAX_VCPUS/64];
> Also you may clarify what this gets used for a shared event. I guess
> this only makes sense for a private event which can be registered by
> several EPs?

Nope, they're used by both shared and private events. For shared event,
the bit#0 is used to indicate the state, while the individual bit is
used for the private event. Yes, the private event can be registered
and enabled separately on multiple PEs.

>> +};
>> +
>> +struct kvm_sdei_vcpu_event_state {
>> +	__u64	num;
>> +	__u32	refcount;
> how does it differ from num and refcount of the registered event?
> padding++

About @num and @refcount, please refer to the above explanation. Yes,
I will fix padding in next respin.

>> +};
>> +
>> +struct kvm_sdei_vcpu_regs {
>> +	__u64	regs[18];
>> +	__u64	pc;
>> +	__u64	pstate;
>> +};
>> +
>> +struct kvm_sdei_vcpu_state {
>> +	__u8				masked;
> padding++

Ok.

>> +	__u64				critical_num;
>> +	__u64				normal_num;
>> +	struct kvm_sdei_vcpu_regs	critical_regs;
>> +	struct kvm_sdei_vcpu_regs	normal_regs;
>> +};> +
>> +#endif /* !__ASSEMBLY__ */
>> +#endif /* _UAPI__ASM_KVM_SDEI_H */
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/Makefile b/arch/arm64/kvm/Makefile
>> index 989bb5dad2c8..eefca8ca394d 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/Makefile
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/Makefile
>> @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ kvm-y := $(KVM)/kvm_main.o $(KVM)/coalesced_mmio.o $(KVM)/eventfd.o \
>>   	 inject_fault.o va_layout.o handle_exit.o \
>>   	 guest.o debug.o reset.o sys_regs.o \
>>   	 vgic-sys-reg-v3.o fpsimd.o pmu.o \
>> -	 arch_timer.o trng.o\
>> +	 arch_timer.o trng.o sdei.o \
>>   	 vgic/vgic.o vgic/vgic-init.o \
>>   	 vgic/vgic-irqfd.o vgic/vgic-v2.o \
>>   	 vgic/vgic-v3.o vgic/vgic-v4.o \
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
>> index e9a2b8f27792..2f021aa41632 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
>> @@ -150,6 +150,8 @@ int kvm_arch_init_vm(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long type)
>>   
>>   	kvm_vgic_early_init(kvm);
>>   
>> +	kvm_sdei_init_vm(kvm);
>> +
>>   	/* The maximum number of VCPUs is limited by the host's GIC model */
>>   	kvm->arch.max_vcpus = kvm_arm_default_max_vcpus();
>>   
>> @@ -179,6 +181,8 @@ void kvm_arch_destroy_vm(struct kvm *kvm)
>>   
>>   	kvm_vgic_destroy(kvm);
>>   
>> +	kvm_sdei_destroy_vm(kvm);
>> +
>>   	for (i = 0; i < KVM_MAX_VCPUS; ++i) {
>>   		if (kvm->vcpus[i]) {
>>   			kvm_vcpu_destroy(kvm->vcpus[i]);
>> @@ -333,6 +337,8 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_create(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>   
>>   	kvm_arm_pvtime_vcpu_init(&vcpu->arch);
>>   
>> +	kvm_sdei_create_vcpu(vcpu);
>> +
>>   	vcpu->arch.hw_mmu = &vcpu->kvm->arch.mmu;
>>   
>>   	err = kvm_vgic_vcpu_init(vcpu);
>> @@ -354,6 +360,7 @@ void kvm_arch_vcpu_destroy(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>   	kvm_mmu_free_memory_cache(&vcpu->arch.mmu_page_cache);
>>   	kvm_timer_vcpu_terminate(vcpu);
>>   	kvm_pmu_vcpu_destroy(vcpu);
>> +	kvm_sdei_destroy_vcpu(vcpu);
>>   
>>   	kvm_arm_vcpu_destroy(vcpu);
>>   }
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c
>> index 30da78f72b3b..d3fc893a4f58 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c
>> @@ -139,6 +139,24 @@ int kvm_hvc_call_handler(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>   	case ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_RND32:
>>   	case ARM_SMCCC_TRNG_RND64:
>>   		return kvm_trng_call(vcpu);
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_VERSION:
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_EVENT_REGISTER:
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_EVENT_ENABLE:
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_EVENT_DISABLE:
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_EVENT_CONTEXT:
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_EVENT_COMPLETE:
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_EVENT_COMPLETE_AND_RESUME:
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_EVENT_UNREGISTER:
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_EVENT_STATUS:
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_EVENT_GET_INFO:
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_EVENT_ROUTING_SET:
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_PE_MASK:
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_PE_UNMASK:
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_INTERRUPT_BIND:
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_INTERRUPT_RELEASE:
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_PRIVATE_RESET:
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_SHARED_RESET:
>> +		return kvm_sdei_hypercall(vcpu);
>>   	default:
>>   		return kvm_psci_call(vcpu);
>>   	}
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sdei.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sdei.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..ab330b74a965
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sdei.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,198 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>> +/*
>> + * SDEI virtualization support.
>> + *
>> + * Copyright (C) 2021 Red Hat, Inc.
>> + *
>> + * Author(s): Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
>> + */
>> +
>> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
>> +#include <linux/kvm_host.h>
>> +#include <linux/spinlock.h>
>> +#include <linux/slab.h>
>> +#include <kvm/arm_hypercalls.h>
>> +
>> +static struct kvm_sdei_event_state defined_kse[] = {
>> +	{ KVM_SDEI_DEFAULT_NUM,
>> +	  SDEI_EVENT_TYPE_PRIVATE,
>> +	  1,
>> +	  SDEI_EVENT_PRIORITY_CRITICAL
>> +	},
>> +};
> I understand from the above we currently only support a single static (~
> platform) SDEI event with num = KVM_SDEI_DEFAULT_NUM. We do not support
> bound events. You may add a comment here and maybe in the commit msg.
> I would rename the variable into exported_events.

Yeah, we may enhance it to allow userspace to add more in future, but
not now. Ok, I will rename it to @exported_events.

>> +
>> +static void kvm_sdei_remove_events(struct kvm *kvm)
>> +{
>> +	struct kvm_sdei_kvm *ksdei = kvm->arch.sdei;
>> +	struct kvm_sdei_event *kse, *tmp;
>> +
>> +	list_for_each_entry_safe(kse, tmp, &ksdei->events, link) {
>> +		list_del(&kse->link);
>> +		kfree(kse);
>> +	}
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void kvm_sdei_remove_kvm_events(struct kvm *kvm,
>> +				       unsigned int mask,
>> +				       bool force)
>> +{
>> +	struct kvm_sdei_kvm *ksdei = kvm->arch.sdei;
>> +	struct kvm_sdei_event *kse;
>> +	struct kvm_sdei_kvm_event *kske, *tmp;
>> +
>> +	list_for_each_entry_safe(kske, tmp, &ksdei->kvm_events, link) {
>> +		kse = kske->kse;
>> +
>> +		if (!((1 << kse->state.type) & mask))
>> +			continue;
> don't you need to hold a lock before looping? What if sbdy concurrently
> changes the state fields, especially the refcount below?

Yes, the caller holds @kvm->sdei_lock.

>> +
>> +		if (!force && kske->state.refcount)
>> +			continue;
> Usually the refcount is used to control the lifetime of the object. The
> 'force' flag looks wrong in that context. Shouldn't you make sure all
> users have released their refcounts and on the last decrement, delete
> the object?

@force is used for exceptional case. For example, the KVM process is
killed before the event reference count gets chance to be dropped.

>> +
>> +		list_del(&kske->link);
>> +		kfree(kske);
>> +	}
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void kvm_sdei_remove_vcpu_events(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> +{
>> +	struct kvm_sdei_vcpu *vsdei = vcpu->arch.sdei;
>> +	struct kvm_sdei_vcpu_event *ksve, *tmp;
>> +
>> +	list_for_each_entry_safe(ksve, tmp, &vsdei->critical_events, link) {
>> +		list_del(&ksve->link);
>> +		kfree(ksve);
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	list_for_each_entry_safe(ksve, tmp, &vsdei->normal_events, link) {
>> +		list_del(&ksve->link);
>> +		kfree(ksve);
>> +	}
>> +}
>> +
>> +int kvm_sdei_hypercall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> +{
>> +	u32 func = smccc_get_function(vcpu);
>> +	bool has_result = true;
>> +	unsigned long ret;
>> +
>> +	switch (func) {
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_VERSION:
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_EVENT_REGISTER:
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_EVENT_ENABLE:
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_EVENT_DISABLE:
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_EVENT_CONTEXT:
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_EVENT_COMPLETE:
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_EVENT_COMPLETE_AND_RESUME:
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_EVENT_UNREGISTER:
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_EVENT_STATUS:
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_EVENT_GET_INFO:
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_EVENT_ROUTING_SET:
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_PE_MASK:
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_PE_UNMASK:
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_INTERRUPT_BIND:
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_INTERRUPT_RELEASE:
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_PRIVATE_RESET:
>> +	case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_SHARED_RESET:
>> +	default:
>> +		ret = SDEI_NOT_SUPPORTED;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * We don't have return value for COMPLETE or COMPLETE_AND_RESUME
>> +	 * hypercalls. Otherwise, the restored context will be corrupted.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (has_result)
>> +		smccc_set_retval(vcpu, ret, 0, 0, 0);
> If I understand the above comment, COMPLETE and COMPLETE_AND_RESUME
> should have has_result set to false whereas in that case they will
> return NOT_SUPPORTED. Is that OK for the context restore?

Nice catch! @has_result needs to be false for COMPLETE and COMPLETE_AND_RESUME.

>> +
>> +	return 1;
>> +}
>> +
>> +void kvm_sdei_init_vm(struct kvm *kvm)
>> +{
>> +	struct kvm_sdei_kvm *ksdei;
>> +	struct kvm_sdei_event *kse;
>> +	int i;
>> +
>> +	ksdei = kzalloc(sizeof(*ksdei), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +	if (!ksdei)
>> +		return;
>> +
>> +	spin_lock_init(&ksdei->lock);
>> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ksdei->events);
>> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ksdei->kvm_events);
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Populate the defined KVM SDEI events. The whole functionality
>> +	 * will be disabled on any errors.
> You should definitively revise your naming conventions. this brings
> confusion inbetween exported events and registered events. Why not
> simply adopt the spec terminology?

Yeah, I think so, but I think "defined KVM SDEI events" is following
the specification because the SDEI event is defined by the firmware
as the specification says. We're emulating firmware in KVM here.

>> +	 */
>> +	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(defined_kse); i++) {
>> +		kse = kzalloc(sizeof(*kse), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +		if (!kse) {
>> +			kvm_sdei_remove_events(kvm);
>> +			kfree(ksdei);
>> +			return;
>> +		}
> Add a comment saying that despite we currently support a single static
> event we prepare for binding support by building a list of exposed events?
> 
> Or maybe simplify the implementation at this stage of the development
> assuming a single platform event is supported?

I will add comment as you suggested in next respin. Note that another entry
will be added to the defined event array when Async PF is involved.

>> +
>> +		kse->kvm   = kvm;
>> +		kse->state = defined_kse[i];
>> +		list_add_tail(&kse->link, &ksdei->events);
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	kvm->arch.sdei = ksdei;
>> +}
>> +
>> +void kvm_sdei_create_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> +{
>> +	struct kvm *kvm = vcpu->kvm;
>> +	struct kvm_sdei_vcpu *vsdei;
>> +
>> +	if (!kvm->arch.sdei)
>> +		return;
>> +
>> +	vsdei = kzalloc(sizeof(*vsdei), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +	if (!vsdei)
>> +		return;
>> +
>> +	spin_lock_init(&vsdei->lock);
>> +	vsdei->state.masked       = 1;
>> +	vsdei->state.critical_num = KVM_SDEI_INVALID_NUM;
>> +	vsdei->state.normal_num   = KVM_SDEI_INVALID_NUM;
>> +	vsdei->critical_event     = NULL;
>> +	vsdei->normal_event       = NULL;
>> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&vsdei->critical_events);
>> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&vsdei->normal_events);
>> +
>> +	vcpu->arch.sdei = vsdei;
>> +}
>> +
>> +void kvm_sdei_destroy_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> +{
>> +	struct kvm_sdei_vcpu *vsdei = vcpu->arch.sdei;
>> +
>> +	if (vsdei) {
>> +		spin_lock(&vsdei->lock);
>> +		kvm_sdei_remove_vcpu_events(vcpu);
>> +		spin_unlock(&vsdei->lock);
>> +
>> +		kfree(vsdei);
>> +		vcpu->arch.sdei = NULL;
>> +	}
>> +}
>> +
>> +void kvm_sdei_destroy_vm(struct kvm *kvm)
>> +{
>> +	struct kvm_sdei_kvm *ksdei = kvm->arch.sdei;
>> +	unsigned int mask = (1 << SDEI_EVENT_TYPE_PRIVATE) |
>> +			    (1 << SDEI_EVENT_TYPE_SHARED);
>> +
>> +	if (ksdei) {
>> +		spin_lock(&ksdei->lock);
>> +		kvm_sdei_remove_kvm_events(kvm, mask, true);> +		kvm_sdei_remove_events(kvm);
>> +		spin_unlock(&ksdei->lock);
>> +
>> +		kfree(ksdei);
>> +		kvm->arch.sdei = NULL;
>> +	}
>> +}
>>

Thanks,
Gavin