Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:6 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:6;
Message-ID: <6687f58c-0da9-0583-2dc1-2089f292b745@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 28 Sep 2023 17:55:39 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.15.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] KVM: arm64: Support for Arm v8.8 memcpy
 instructions in KVM guests
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>
Cc:     kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@arm.com>,
        Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@google.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230922112508.1774352-1-kristina.martsenko@arm.com>
 <ZRPE9OcB9ndgFxbs@linux.dev>
From:   Kristina Martsenko <kristina.martsenko@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZRPE9OcB9ndgFxbs@linux.dev>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 27/09/2023 07:00, Oliver Upton wrote:
> Hi Kristina,

Hi Oliver,

> 
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 12:25:06PM +0100, Kristina Martsenko wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is v2 of the series to allow using the new Arm memory copy instructions
>> in KVM guests. See v1 for more information [1].
> 
> 
> Thanks for sending out the series. I've been thinking about what the
> architecture says for MOPS, and I wonder if what's currently in the
> Arm ARM is clear enough for EL1 software to be written robustly.
> 
> While HCRX_EL2.MCE2 allows the hypervisor to intervene on MOPS
> exceptions from EL1, there's no such control for EL0. So when vCPU
> migration occurs EL1 could get an unexpected MOPS exception, even for a
> process that was pinned to a single (virtual) CPU implementation.
> 
> Additionally, the wording of I_NXHPS seems to suggest that EL2 handling
> of MOPS exceptions is only expected in certain circumstances where EL1 is
> incapable of handling an exception. Is the unwritten expectation then
> that EL1 software should tolerate 'unexpected' MOPS exceptions from EL1
> and EL0, even if EL1 did not migrate the PE context?
> 
> Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but I'd really like for there to be some
> documentation that suggests MOPS exceptions can happen due to context
> migration done by a higher EL as that is the only option in the context
> of virtualization.

That's a good point. This shouldn't affect Linux guests as Linux is
always able to handle a MOPS exception coming from EL0. But it would
affect any non-Linux guest that pins all its EL0 tasks and doesn't
implement a handler. It's not clear to me what the expectation for
guests is, I'll ask the architects to clarify and get back to you.

Thanks for the feedback!

Kristina