Pavel,
On 03/12/15 09:58, Pavel Fedin wrote:
> System register accesses also use zero register for Rt == 31, and
> therefore using it will also result in getting SP value instead. This
> patch makes them also using new accessors, introduced by the previous
> patch.
>
> Additionally, got rid of "massive hack" in kvm_handle_cp_64().
Looks good for a first drop - some comments below.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Fedin <p.fe...@samsung.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c | 79
> ++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.h | 4 +-
> arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs_generic_v8.c | 2 +-
> 3 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> index 87a64e8..a667228 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ static bool access_vm_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>
> BUG_ON(!p->is_write);
>
> - val = *vcpu_reg(vcpu, p->Rt);
> + val = *p->val;
Why does it have to be a pointer? You could just have "val = p->val" if
you carried the actual value instead of a pointer to the stack variable
holding that value.
> if (!p->is_aarch32) {
> vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, r->reg) = val;
> } else {
> @@ -125,13 +125,10 @@ static bool access_gic_sgi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> const struct sys_reg_params *p,
> const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
> {
> - u64 val;
> -
> if (!p->is_write)
> return read_from_write_only(vcpu, p);
>
> - val = *vcpu_reg(vcpu, p->Rt);
> - vgic_v3_dispatch_sgi(vcpu, val);
> + vgic_v3_dispatch_sgi(vcpu, *p->val);
>
> return true;
> }
> @@ -153,7 +150,7 @@ static bool trap_oslsr_el1(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> if (p->is_write) {
> return ignore_write(vcpu, p);
> } else {
> - *vcpu_reg(vcpu, p->Rt) = (1 << 3);
> + *p->val = (1 << 3);
> return true;
> }
> }
> @@ -167,7 +164,7 @@ static bool trap_dbgauthstatus_el1(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> } else {
> u32 val;
> asm volatile("mrs %0, dbgauthstatus_el1" : "=r" (val));
> - *vcpu_reg(vcpu, p->Rt) = val;
> + *p->val = val;
> return true;
> }
> }
> @@ -204,13 +201,13 @@ static bool trap_debug_regs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
> {
> if (p->is_write) {
> - vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, r->reg) = *vcpu_reg(vcpu, p->Rt);
> + vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, r->reg) = *p->val;
> vcpu->arch.debug_flags |= KVM_ARM64_DEBUG_DIRTY;
> } else {
> - *vcpu_reg(vcpu, p->Rt) = vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, r->reg);
> + *p->val = vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, r->reg);
> }
>
> - trace_trap_reg(__func__, r->reg, p->is_write, *vcpu_reg(vcpu, p->Rt));
> + trace_trap_reg(__func__, r->reg, p->is_write, *p->val);
>
> return true;
> }
> @@ -228,7 +225,7 @@ static inline void reg_to_dbg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> const struct sys_reg_params *p,
> u64 *dbg_reg)
> {
> - u64 val = *vcpu_reg(vcpu, p->Rt);
> + u64 val = *p->val;
>
> if (p->is_32bit) {
> val &= 0xffffffffUL;
> @@ -248,7 +245,7 @@ static inline void dbg_to_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> if (p->is_32bit)
> val &= 0xffffffffUL;
>
> - *vcpu_reg(vcpu, p->Rt) = val;
> + *p->val = val;
> }
>
> static inline bool trap_bvr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> @@ -697,10 +694,10 @@ static bool trap_dbgidr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> u64 pfr = read_system_reg(SYS_ID_AA64PFR0_EL1);
> u32 el3 = !!cpuid_feature_extract_field(pfr,
> ID_AA64PFR0_EL3_SHIFT);
>
> - *vcpu_reg(vcpu, p->Rt) = ((((dfr >> ID_AA64DFR0_WRPS_SHIFT) &
> 0xf) << 28) |
> - (((dfr >> ID_AA64DFR0_BRPS_SHIFT) &
> 0xf) << 24) |
> - (((dfr >> ID_AA64DFR0_CTX_CMPS_SHIFT)
> & 0xf) << 20) |
> - (6 << 16) | (el3 << 14) | (el3 <<
> 12));
> + *p->val = ((((dfr >> ID_AA64DFR0_WRPS_SHIFT) & 0xf) << 28) |
> + (((dfr >> ID_AA64DFR0_BRPS_SHIFT) & 0xf) << 24) |
> + (((dfr >> ID_AA64DFR0_CTX_CMPS_SHIFT) & 0xf) << 20) |
> + (6 << 16) | (el3 << 14) | (el3 << 12));
> return true;
> }
> }
> @@ -710,10 +707,10 @@ static bool trap_debug32(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
> {
> if (p->is_write) {
> - vcpu_cp14(vcpu, r->reg) = *vcpu_reg(vcpu, p->Rt);
> + vcpu_cp14(vcpu, r->reg) = *p->val;
> vcpu->arch.debug_flags |= KVM_ARM64_DEBUG_DIRTY;
> } else {
> - *vcpu_reg(vcpu, p->Rt) = vcpu_cp14(vcpu, r->reg);
> + *p->val = vcpu_cp14(vcpu, r->reg);
> }
>
> return true;
> @@ -740,12 +737,12 @@ static inline bool trap_xvr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> u64 val = *dbg_reg;
>
> val &= 0xffffffffUL;
> - val |= *vcpu_reg(vcpu, p->Rt) << 32;
> + val |= *p->val << 32;
> *dbg_reg = val;
>
> vcpu->arch.debug_flags |= KVM_ARM64_DEBUG_DIRTY;
> } else {
> - *vcpu_reg(vcpu, p->Rt) = *dbg_reg >> 32;
> + *p->val = *dbg_reg >> 32;
> }
>
> trace_trap_reg(__func__, rd->reg, p->is_write, *dbg_reg);
> @@ -1062,12 +1059,14 @@ static int kvm_handle_cp_64(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> {
> struct sys_reg_params params;
> u32 hsr = kvm_vcpu_get_hsr(vcpu);
> + int Rt = (hsr >> 5) & 0xf;
> int Rt2 = (hsr >> 10) & 0xf;
> + unsigned long val;
>
> params.is_aarch32 = true;
> params.is_32bit = false;
> params.CRm = (hsr >> 1) & 0xf;
> - params.Rt = (hsr >> 5) & 0xf;
> + params.val = &val;
> params.is_write = ((hsr & 1) == 0);
>
> params.Op0 = 0;
> @@ -1076,15 +1075,12 @@ static int kvm_handle_cp_64(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> params.CRn = 0;
>
> /*
> - * Massive hack here. Store Rt2 in the top 32bits so we only
> - * have one register to deal with. As we use the same trap
> + * Make a 64-bit value out of Rt and Rt2. As we use the same trap
> * backends between AArch32 and AArch64, we get away with it.
> */
> if (params.is_write) {
> - u64 val = *vcpu_reg(vcpu, params.Rt);
> - val &= 0xffffffff;
> - val |= *vcpu_reg(vcpu, Rt2) << 32;
> - *vcpu_reg(vcpu, params.Rt) = val;
> + val = vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, Rt) & 0xffffffff;
> + val |= vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, Rt2) << 32;
> }
>
> if (!emulate_cp(vcpu, ¶ms, target_specific, nr_specific))
> @@ -1095,11 +1091,10 @@ static int kvm_handle_cp_64(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> unhandled_cp_access(vcpu, ¶ms);
>
> out:
> - /* Do the opposite hack for the read side */
> + /* Split up the value between registers for the read side */
> if (!params.is_write) {
> - u64 val = *vcpu_reg(vcpu, params.Rt);
> - val >>= 32;
> - *vcpu_reg(vcpu, Rt2) = val;
> + vcpu_set_reg(vcpu, Rt, val & 0xffffffff);
> + vcpu_set_reg(vcpu, Rt, val >> 32);
Can you use higher_32bit/lower_32bit since you're touching that code?
> }
>
> return 1;
> @@ -1118,21 +1113,27 @@ static int kvm_handle_cp_32(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> {
> struct sys_reg_params params;
> u32 hsr = kvm_vcpu_get_hsr(vcpu);
> + int Rt = (hsr >> 5) & 0xf;
> + unsigned long val = vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, Rt);
>
> params.is_aarch32 = true;
> params.is_32bit = true;
> params.CRm = (hsr >> 1) & 0xf;
> - params.Rt = (hsr >> 5) & 0xf;
> + params.val = &val;
> params.is_write = ((hsr & 1) == 0);
> params.CRn = (hsr >> 10) & 0xf;
> params.Op0 = 0;
> params.Op1 = (hsr >> 14) & 0x7;
> params.Op2 = (hsr >> 17) & 0x7;
>
> - if (!emulate_cp(vcpu, ¶ms, target_specific, nr_specific))
> + if (!emulate_cp(vcpu, ¶ms, target_specific, nr_specific)) {
> + vcpu_set_reg(vcpu, Rt, val);
> return 1;
> - if (!emulate_cp(vcpu, ¶ms, global, nr_global))
> + }
> + if (!emulate_cp(vcpu, ¶ms, global, nr_global)) {
> + vcpu_set_reg(vcpu, Rt, val);
> return 1;
> + }
I'm not sure I'm 100% confident to do a writeback to the register if
that was a sysreg read.
Could you write it like this instead:
if (!emulate_cp(vcpu, ¶ms, target_specific, nr_specific) ||
!emulate_cp(vcpu, ¶ms, global, nr_global)) {
if (!params.is_write)
vcpu_set_reg(vcpu, Rt, val);
return 1;
}
>
> unhandled_cp_access(vcpu, ¶ms);
> return 1;
> @@ -1230,6 +1231,9 @@ int kvm_handle_sys_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct
> kvm_run *run)
> {
> struct sys_reg_params params;
> unsigned long esr = kvm_vcpu_get_hsr(vcpu);
> + int Rt = (esr >> 5) & 0x1f;
> + unsigned long val = vcpu_get_reg(vcpu, Rt);
> + int ret;
>
> trace_kvm_handle_sys_reg(esr);
>
> @@ -1240,10 +1244,13 @@ int kvm_handle_sys_reg(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct
> kvm_run *run)
> params.CRn = (esr >> 10) & 0xf;
> params.CRm = (esr >> 1) & 0xf;
> params.Op2 = (esr >> 17) & 0x7;
> - params.Rt = (esr >> 5) & 0x1f;
> + params.val = &val;
> params.is_write = !(esr & 1);
>
> - return emulate_sys_reg(vcpu, ¶ms);
> + ret = emulate_sys_reg(vcpu, ¶ms);
> +
> + vcpu_set_reg(vcpu, Rt, val);
Same here. Clobbering the source register on a write feels unsafe.
> + return ret;
> }
>
>
> /******************************************************************************
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.h b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.h
> index eaa324e..3267518 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.h
> @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ struct sys_reg_params {
> u8 CRn;
> u8 CRm;
> u8 Op2;
> - u8 Rt;
> + u_long *val;
This definitely should be a u64. I'd also prefer something like regval,
which is slightly more precise. And make it a direct variable, not a
pointer.
> bool is_write;
> bool is_aarch32;
> bool is_32bit; /* Only valid if is_aarch32 is true */
> @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ static inline bool ignore_write(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> static inline bool read_zero(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> const struct sys_reg_params *p)
> {
> - *vcpu_reg(vcpu, p->Rt) = 0;
> + *p->val = 0;
> return true;
> }
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs_generic_v8.c
> b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs_generic_v8.c
> index 1e45768..c805576 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs_generic_v8.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs_generic_v8.c
> @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ static bool access_actlr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> if (p->is_write)
> return ignore_write(vcpu, p);
>
> - *vcpu_reg(vcpu, p->Rt) = vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, ACTLR_EL1);
> + *p->val = vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, ACTLR_EL1);
> return true;
> }
>
>
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
