On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 02:36:15PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> It is a bit odd that we only install stage-2 translation after having
> cleared HCR_EL2.TGE, which means that there is a window during which
> AT requests could fail as stage-2 is not configured yet.
>
> Let's move stage-2 configuration before we clear TGE, making the
> guest entry sequence clearer: we first configure all the guest stuff,
> then only switch to the guest translation regime.
>
> Non-VHE doesn't have that kind of behaviour, and is left alone.
I'm a bit confused about this statement. You can still issue a S12E1x
AT instruction after activating traps (setting HCR_EL2.VM) on non-VHE
and get at the same behavior, right?
Is the point here that we are not aware of any non-VHE implementations
that speculate AT instructions in this window, or am I missing some
architectural nugget that prevents problems on non-VHE systems?
In any case, why not change the non-VHE code as well to preserve
symmetry for both types of systems?
Thanks,
Christoffer
>
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c
> index 7cc175c88a37..51d5d966d9e5 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c
> @@ -499,8 +499,8 @@ int kvm_vcpu_run_vhe(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>
> sysreg_save_host_state_vhe(host_ctxt);
>
> - __activate_traps(vcpu);
> __activate_vm(vcpu->kvm);
> + __activate_traps(vcpu);
>
> sysreg_restore_guest_state_vhe(guest_ctxt);
> __debug_switch_to_guest(vcpu);
> --
> 2.19.1
>
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
