Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-77870-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Message-ID: <ab50e67e-3d06-4ba7-a5f8-4684e9ef98a4@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 12:58:48 +0530
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH V16 2/8] KVM: arm64: Prevent guest accesses into BRBE
 system registers/instructions
Content-Language: en-US
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 will@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
 James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
 Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, Suzuki Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
 Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
 linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
 James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev
References: <20240125094119.2542332-1-anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
 <20240125094119.2542332-3-anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
 <ZdYCUi9YVDNDz7fr@FVFF77S0Q05N>
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZdYCUi9YVDNDz7fr@FVFF77S0Q05N>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 2/21/24 19:31, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 03:11:13PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> Currently BRBE feature is not supported in a guest environment. This hides
>> BRBE feature availability via masking ID_AA64DFR0_EL1.BRBE field.
> 
> Does that means that a guest can currently see BRBE advertised in the
> ID_AA64DFR0_EL1.BRB field, or is that hidden by the regular cpufeature code
> today?

IIRC it is hidden, but will have to double check. When experimenting for BRBE
guest support enablement earlier, following changes were need for the feature
to be visible in ID_AA64DFR0_EL1.

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
index 646591c67e7a..f258568535a8 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
@@ -445,6 +445,7 @@ static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_id_mmfr0[] = {
 };
 
 static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_id_aa64dfr0[] = {
+       S_ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_VISIBLE, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_BRBE_SHIFT, 4, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_BRBE_IMP),
        S_ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_DoubleLock_SHIFT, 4, 0),
        ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_PMSVer_SHIFT, 4, 0),
        ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_CTX_CMPs_SHIFT, 4, 0),

Should we add the following entry - explicitly hiding BRBE from the guest
as a prerequisite patch ?

S_ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_BRBE_SHIFT, 4, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_BRBE_NI)

> 
>> This also blocks guest accesses into BRBE system registers and instructions
>> as if the underlying hardware never implemented FEAT_BRBE feature.
>>
>> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>
>> Cc: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
>> Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
>> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
>> Cc: kvmarm@lists.linux.dev
>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
>> ---
>> Changes in V16:
>>
>> - Added BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1 macro for corresponding BRB_[INF|SRC|TGT] expansion
>>
>>  arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 56 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
>> index 30253bd19917..6a06dc2f0c06 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
>> @@ -1304,6 +1304,11 @@ static int set_pmcr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct sys_reg_desc *r,
>>  	return 0;
>>  }
>>  
>> +#define BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(n)					\
>> +	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBINF##n##_EL1), undef_access },	\
>> +	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBSRC##n##_EL1), undef_access },	\
>> +	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBTGT##n##_EL1), undef_access }		\
> 
> With the changes suggested on the previous patch, this would need to change to be:
> 
> 	#define BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(n)					\
> 		{ SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBINF_EL1(n)), undef_access },	\
> 		{ SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBSRC_EL1(n)), undef_access },	\
> 		{ SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBTGT_EL1(n)), undef_access }	\

Sure, already folded back in these above changes.

> 
> 
> ... which would also be easier for backporting (if necessary), since those
> definitions have existed for a while.
> 
> Otherwise (modulo Suzuki's comment about rebasing), this looks good to me.

Okay.

> 
> Mark.
> 
>>  /* Silly macro to expand the DBG{BCR,BVR,WVR,WCR}n_EL1 registers in one go */
>>  #define DBG_BCR_BVR_WCR_WVR_EL1(n)					\
>>  	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_DBGBVRn_EL1(n)),					\
>> @@ -1707,6 +1712,9 @@ static u64 read_sanitised_id_aa64dfr0_el1(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>  	/* Hide SPE from guests */
>>  	val &= ~ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_PMSVer_MASK;
>>  
>> +	/* Hide BRBE from guests */
>> +	val &= ~ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_BRBE_MASK;
>> +
>>  	return val;
>>  }
>>  
>> @@ -2195,6 +2203,8 @@ static const struct sys_reg_desc sys_reg_descs[] = {
>>  	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_DC_CISW), access_dcsw },
>>  	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_DC_CIGSW), access_dcgsw },
>>  	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_DC_CIGDSW), access_dcgsw },
>> +	{ SYS_DESC(OP_BRB_IALL), undef_access },
>> +	{ SYS_DESC(OP_BRB_INJ), undef_access },
>>  
>>  	DBG_BCR_BVR_WCR_WVR_EL1(0),
>>  	DBG_BCR_BVR_WCR_WVR_EL1(1),
>> @@ -2225,6 +2235,52 @@ static const struct sys_reg_desc sys_reg_descs[] = {
>>  	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_DBGCLAIMCLR_EL1), trap_raz_wi },
>>  	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_DBGAUTHSTATUS_EL1), trap_dbgauthstatus_el1 },
>>  
>> +	/*
>> +	 * BRBE branch record sysreg address space is interleaved between
>> +	 * corresponding BRBINF<N>_EL1, BRBSRC<N>_EL1, and BRBTGT<N>_EL1.
>> +	 */
>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(0),
>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(16),
>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(1),
>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(17),
>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(2),
>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(18),
>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(3),
>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(19),
>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(4),
>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(20),
>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(5),
>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(21),
>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(6),
>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(22),
>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(7),
>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(23),
>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(8),
>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(24),
>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(9),
>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(25),
>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(10),
>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(26),
>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(11),
>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(27),
>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(12),
>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(28),
>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(13),
>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(29),
>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(14),
>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(30),
>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(15),
>> +	BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(31),
>> +
>> +	/* Remaining BRBE sysreg addresses space */
>> +	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBCR_EL1), undef_access },
>> +	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBFCR_EL1), undef_access },
>> +	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBTS_EL1), undef_access },
>> +	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBINFINJ_EL1), undef_access },
>> +	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBSRCINJ_EL1), undef_access },
>> +	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBTGTINJ_EL1), undef_access },
>> +	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBIDR0_EL1), undef_access },
>> +
>>  	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_MDCCSR_EL0), trap_raz_wi },
>>  	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_DBGDTR_EL0), trap_raz_wi },
>>  	// DBGDTR[TR]X_EL0 share the same encoding
>> -- 
>> 2.25.1
>>