Marc Zyngier <marc.zyng...@arm.com> writes:

> On 04/06/15 10:34, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:43:06AM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>> The elr_el2 and spsr_el2 registers in fact contain the processor state
>>> before entry into the hypervisor code.
>> 
>> be careful with your use of the hypervisor, in the KVM design the
>> hypervisor is split across EL1 and EL2.

"before entry into EL2."

>> 
>>> In the case of guest state it
>>> could be in either el0 or el1.
>> 
>> true
>> 
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S | 8 ++++----
>>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S
>>> index d755922..1940a4c 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S
>>> @@ -50,8 +50,8 @@
>>>     stp     x29, lr, [x3, #80]
>>>  
>>>     mrs     x19, sp_el0
>>> -   mrs     x20, elr_el2            // EL1 PC
>>> -   mrs     x21, spsr_el2           // EL1 pstate
>>> +   mrs     x20, elr_el2            // PC before hyp entry
>>> +   mrs     x21, spsr_el2           // pstate before hyp entry
>>>  
>>>     stp     x19, x20, [x3, #96]
>>>     str     x21, [x3, #112]
>>> @@ -82,8 +82,8 @@
>>>     ldr     x21, [x3, #16]
>>>  
>>>     msr     sp_el0, x19
>>> -   msr     elr_el2, x20                            // EL1 PC
>>> -   msr     spsr_el2, x21                           // EL1 pstate
>>> +   msr     elr_el2, x20            // PC to restore
>>> +   msr     spsr_el2, x21           // pstate to restore
>> 
>> I don't feel like 'to restore' is much more meaningful here.
>> 
>> I would actually vote for removin the comments all together, since one
>> should really understand the code as opposed to the comments when
>> reading this kind of stuff.
>> 
>> Meh, I'm not sure.  Your patch is definitely better than doing nothing.
>> 
>> Marc?
>
> While I definitely agree that people should pay more attention to the
> code rather than blindly trusting comments, I still think there is some
> value in disambiguating the exception entry/return, because this bit of
> code assumes some intimate knowledge of the ARMv8 exception model.
>
> As for the comments themselves, I'd rather have some wording that
> clearly indicate that we're dealing with guest information, i.e:
>
>       mrs     x20, elr_el2            // Guest PC
>       mrs     x21, spsr_el2           // Guest pstate
>
> (and the same for the exception return). The "before hyp entry" and "to
> restore" are not really useful (all the registers we are
> saving/restoring fall into these categories). What I wanted to convey
> here was that despite using an EL2 register, we are dealing with guest
> registers.

Which would be great it we were. However the code is used to
save/restore the host context as well as the guest context hence my
weasely words. 

>
> Would this address your concerns?
>
> Thanks,
>
>       M.

-- 
Alex Bennée
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm

Reply via email to