Hi Marc,
On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 12:19:16PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2022 17:42:04 +0000,
> Alexandru Elisei <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Marc,
> >
> > Bunch of bikeshedding regarding names below, which can be safely ignored.
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 29, 2021 at 08:00:52PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > From: Christoffer Dall <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > When running a nested hypervisor we commonly have to figure out if
> > > the VCPU mode is running in the context of a guest hypervisor or guest
> > > guest, or just a normal guest.
> > >
> > > Add convenient primitives for this.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <[email protected]>
> > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h
> > > b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h
> > > index f4871e47b2d0..f4b079945d0f 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h
> > > @@ -176,6 +176,61 @@ static __always_inline void vcpu_set_reg(struct
> > > kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u8 reg_num,
> > > vcpu_gp_regs(vcpu)->regs[reg_num] = val;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static inline bool vcpu_mode_el2_ctxt(const struct kvm_cpu_context *ctxt)
> >
> > "The Armv8-A architecture defines a set of Exception levels, EL0 to EL3"
> > (ARM
> > DDI 0487G.a, page G1-5941).
> >
> > "AArch64 state does not support modes. Modes are a concept that is specific
> > to
> > AArch32 state." (ARM DDI 0487G.a, page G1-5944).
> >
> > Wouldn't it be better to use the same terminology as the architecture?
>
> Probably. I'll see how invasive it is to repaint this. It still
> remains that the 'mode' term is used all over the shop (for example,
> PSR_MODE_*).
It might be easier if it's a separate patch on top of this series, instead
of renaming the function in (potentially) every patch that follows. I can
write that patch, if it helps.
>
> > > +{
> > > + unsigned long cpsr = ctxt->regs.pstate;
> >
> > CPSR is an AArch32 register. Why not name the variable pstate?
>
> Because we have *a ton* of existing CPSR references all over the shop
> (more than references to pstate, actually), owing to the AArch32
> heritage of KVM/arm64. Yes, I can change this locally without any
> damage. But repainting the whole of KVM would be fairly pointless
> (same with hsr/esr, hfar/far_el2...).
That's fine, I wasn't suggesting replacing it everywhere, that's too
invasive.
>
> >
> > > +
> > > + switch (cpsr & (PSR_MODE32_BIT | PSR_MODE_MASK)) {
> > > + case PSR_MODE_EL2h:
> > > + case PSR_MODE_EL2t:
> > > + return true;
> > > + default:
> > > + return false;
> > > + }
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline bool vcpu_mode_el2(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > +{
> > > + return vcpu_mode_el2_ctxt(&vcpu->arch.ctxt);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline bool __vcpu_el2_e2h_is_set(const struct kvm_cpu_context
> > > *ctxt)
> > > +{
> > > + return ctxt_sys_reg(ctxt, HCR_EL2) & HCR_E2H;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline bool vcpu_el2_e2h_is_set(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > +{
> > > + return __vcpu_el2_e2h_is_set(&vcpu->arch.ctxt);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline bool __vcpu_el2_tge_is_set(const struct kvm_cpu_context
> > > *ctxt)
> > > +{
> > > + return ctxt_sys_reg(ctxt, HCR_EL2) & HCR_TGE;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline bool vcpu_el2_tge_is_set(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >
> > This is confusing. What does the exception level have to do with the
> > HCR_EL2.TGE bit being set? Wouldn't vcpu_hcr_tge_is_set() be better?
>
> Sure, why not. Again, I'll see how invasive such a repainting is
> across 70 patches.
>
> >
> > > +{
> > > + return __vcpu_el2_tge_is_set(&vcpu->arch.ctxt);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline bool __is_hyp_ctxt(const struct kvm_cpu_context *ctxt)
> > > +{
> > > + /*
> > > + * We are in a hypervisor context if the vcpu mode is EL2 or
> > > + * E2H and TGE bits are set. The latter means we are in the user space
> > > + * of the VHE kernel. ARMv8.1 ARM describes this as 'InHost'
> >
> > So why not call the function vcpu_is_inhost() or something along
> > those lines to match the architecture?
>
> Because this is not the architectural 'InHost' primitive, which
> returns 'false' if HCR_EL2.E2H==0. The second term of the expression
> could be written in terms of an InHost primitive, but that's about it.
That's true, my mistake.
Thanks,
Alex
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Alex
> >
> > > + */
> > > + return vcpu_mode_el2_ctxt(ctxt) ||
> > > + (__vcpu_el2_e2h_is_set(ctxt) && __vcpu_el2_tge_is_set(ctxt)) ||
> > > + WARN_ON(__vcpu_el2_tge_is_set(ctxt));
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline bool is_hyp_ctxt(const struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > +{
> > > + return __is_hyp_ctxt(&vcpu->arch.ctxt);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > /*
> > > * The layout of SPSR for an AArch32 state is different when observed
> > > from an
> > > * AArch64 SPSR_ELx or an AArch32 SPSR_*. This function generates the
> > > AArch32
>
> Thanks,
>
> M.
>
> --
> Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
