Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 10/11] public: add XENFEAT_ARM_SMCCC_supported feature

[Julien Grall]

On 04/09/17 10:57, Sergej Proskurin wrote:

Hi Julien,


On 09/04/2017 08:07 AM, Julien Grall wrote:

Hello,

Sorry for the formatting, writing from my phone. Ki

On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, 22:18 Sergej Proskurin  wrote:



[...]



On your first mail, you started with "smc injection doesn't work", then "I
replace instruction" and now you mention about single-stepping.

This doesn't help at all to understand what you are doing and really not
related to this thread.

So can you please details exactly what you are doing rather than giving
bits by bits?



I will provide more information in a separate thread soon so that the
actual issue, hopefully, will become clearer. Thank you.


I use SMC instructions as the guest can register for BRK events. The
guest cannot register for SMC events. So, in order stay stealthy towards
the guest and also not to cope with BRK re-injections, SMC's seemed to
be the right choice :


I have already said that using SMC is a pretty bad idea when Tamas added
the trapping and you guys still seem to think it is a good idea...


I did not know about this conversation with Tamas. Why do you believe
that using SMC instructions is not a good idea? Could you please refer
me to the particular thread? Thank you.


I am not sure on which thread it was discussed. 
https://lists.gt.net/xen/devel/427459 may contain some details.


By definition SMC is for Secure Monitor Call. It might be possible to 
have a guest access the secure firmware (e.g imagine an Android guest 
doing video decoding). Given that you don't identify the immediate of 
the SMC (which is BTW not easily available on ARMv7), you cannot have 
both interacting together. And even with that you don't know if the SMC 
#imm might be used by the firmware...


Furthermore, SMC cannot be executed at EL0 so you can't monitor 
application. They also won't be available if the platform that does not 
have EL3.


So yes SMC is a pretty bad choice here if you want to get a generic 
solution.


Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 10/11] public: add XENFEAT_ARM_SMCCC_supported feature

[Sergej Proskurin]

Hi Julien,


On 09/04/2017 08:07 AM, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Sorry for the formatting, writing from my phone. Ki
>
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, 22:18 Sergej Proskurin  wrote:
>

[...]

>
> On your first mail, you started with "smc injection doesn't work", then "I
> replace instruction" and now you mention about single-stepping.
>
> This doesn't help at all to understand what you are doing and really not
> related to this thread.
>
> So can you please details exactly what you are doing rather than giving
> bits by bits?
>

I will provide more information in a separate thread soon so that the
actual issue, hopefully, will become clearer. Thank you.

>> I use SMC instructions as the guest can register for BRK events. The
>> guest cannot register for SMC events. So, in order stay stealthy towards
>> the guest and also not to cope with BRK re-injections, SMC's seemed to
>> be the right choice :
>
> I have already said that using SMC is a pretty bad idea when Tamas added
> the trapping and you guys still seem to think it is a good idea...

I did not know about this conversation with Tamas. Why do you believe
that using SMC instructions is not a good idea? Could you please refer
me to the particular thread? Thank you.

> Current code in hypervisor will always inject undefined instruction
> exception when you  call SMC (unless you installed VM monitor for the
> guest). Also, it will not increase PC. So, if you'll try to remove
> inject_undef_exception() call, you'll get into an infinite loop.
>
 I have a registered SMC monitor running in dom0 that does not reinject
 the undefined instruction exception in do_trap_smc(). So there is no
 indefinite loop at this point. What I see is that as soon as my code in
 xen-access (dom0) increments the trapped guest PC by 4 (and also if it
 doesn't) the next instruction inside the guest will be inside the undef
 instruction handler (I can see that because I have implemented a single
 stepping mechanism for AArch64 in Xen that gets activated right after
 the guest executes the injected SMC instruction).
>>> That's strange. Can you print whole vCPU state to determine that PC
>>> points to the right place? Also you can check DFAR. Probably you can
>>> even dump memory pointed by DFAR to make sure that you written back
>>> correct instruction.
>> Yea, I do that. And both the SMC injection, as well as further vCPU
>> state seems to be correct at this point.
>>
>> Today, I saw an interesting behavior in my single-stepping
>> implementation, which is the reason for my late reply. I can't explain
>> what is going wrong, yet. So I will need to further investigate this
>> behavior and post and RFC for the single-stepping mechanism as to put
>> more eyes on the issue. Maybe, this will help solve it.
>>
>> But anyway, thank you very much for your help! I really appreciate it :)
>>
> You probably want to look at
> https://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2017-08/msg00661.html and
> maybe sync-up with this person if you are not working with him.

Thanks, for mentioning that. Florian is a student of mine who has also
looked at single-stepping on ARMv8. We have collaborated on this topic
together. I will take over on that, as his work goes slightly into a
different direction.

Thanks,
~Sergej


___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 10/11] public: add XENFEAT_ARM_SMCCC_supported feature

[Julien Grall]

Hello,

Sorry for the formatting, writing from my phone. Ki

On Thu, 31 Aug 2017, 22:18 Sergej Proskurin  wrote:

> Hi Volodymyr,
>
>
> On 08/31/2017 04:58 PM, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
> > Hi Sergej
> >
> > On 31.08.17 16:51, Sergej Proskurin wrote:
> >> Hi Volodymyr,
> >>
> >>
> >> On 08/31/2017 02:44 PM, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
> >>> Hello Sergej,
> >>>
> >>> On 31.08.17 15:20, Sergej Proskurin wrote:
>  Hi Volodymyr, hi Julien,
> 
> 
>  On 08/24/2017 07:25 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 21/08/17 21:27, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
> >> This feature indicates that hypervisor is compatible with ARM
> >> SMC calling convention. Hypervisor will not inject an undefined
> >> instruction exception if an invalid SMC function were called and
> >> will not crash a domain if an invlalid HVC functions were called.
> >
> > s/invlalid/invalid/
> >
> > The last sentence is misleading. Xen will still inject and undefined
> > instruction for some SMC/HVC. You may want to rework it to make it
> > clear.
> >
> 
>  Now that you say that Xen will still inject an undefined instruction
>  exception for some SMCs, I have a to ask for which exactly?
> >>> For ones that are compatible with ARM SMCCC [1]. E.g if you are
> >>> running SMCCC-compatible system and you are calling SMC/HVC with
> >>> immediate value 0, then you are safe.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Alright, as far as I understand this is exactly what I do right now. I
> >> inject an SMC that is encoded as 0xD403.
> > Actually, this patch series are not merged yet, so no SMCCC support
> > right. But this should not a problem in your case.
> >
>  I might be off topic here, so please tell me if you believe this is
>  not
>  the right place for this question. In this case I will open an new
>  thread. Right now, I am working with the previous implementation of
>  do_trap_smc that was extended in this patch. Yet, as far as I
>  understand, the behavior should not change, which is why I am asking
>  this quesiton in this thread.
> >>> If you are talking about forwarding SMC exception to VM monitor, then
> >>> yes, that should not change.
> >>
> >> Yes, exactly. Sorry, I forgot to mention that I have a modified
> >> xen-access version running in dom0 that registers an SMC monitor and
> >> also increases the PC by 4 (or dependent on the case, simply leaves it
> >> as it is) on every SMC trap.
> > Aha, I see. I never was able to test this feature fully. I played with
> > my own VM monitor, when I tried to offload SMC handling to another
> > domain. But I had to comment out most of the VM monitor code in XEN.
> >
> >>>
>  Currently, I am working on SMC guest injections and trying to
>  understand
>  the resulting behavior. Every time, right after the execution of an
>  injected SMC instruction, the guest traps into the undefined
>  instruction
>  exception handler in EL1 and I simply don't understand why. As far
>  as I
>  understand, as soon an injected SMC instruction gets executed, it
>  should
>  _transparently_ trap into the hypervisor (assuming MDCR_EL2.TDE is
>  set).
>  As soon as the hypervisor returns (e.g. to PC+4 or to the trapping PC
>  that now contains the original instruction instead of the injected
>  SMC),
>  the guest should simply continue its execution.
> >>> Hm. What do you mean under "SMC instruction injection?".
> >>
> >> My code runs in dom0 and "injects" an SMC instruction to predefined
> >> addresses inside the guest as to simulate software breakpoints. By this,
> >> I mean that the code replaces the original guest instruction at a
> >> certain address with an SMC. Think of a debugger that uses software
> >> breakpoints. The idea is to put back the original instruction right
> >> after the SMC gets called, so that the guest can continue with its
> >> execution. You can find more information about that in [0], yet please
> >> consider that I try to trap the SMC directly in Xen instead of
> >> TrustZone.
> > Yep, I see. Immediate question: do you flush icache after you put
> > original instruction back?
>
> Yeap. But the current behavior does not let me to go this far, as I the
> system jumps into the interrupt handler and single-steps the handler
> instead of the instruction of interest.


On your first mail, you started with "smc injection doesn't work", then "I
replace instruction" and now you mention about single-stepping.

This doesn't help at all to understand what you are doing and really not
related to this thread.

So can you please details exactly what you are doing rather than giving
bits by bits?


> > Then I can't see, why this should not work. If only VM monitor core in
> > XEN is not broken. I don't know any users of this.
> > I'm just curious, why are you using SMC, not BRK instruction?
> >
>
> I use SMC instructions as the guest can register for 

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 10/11] public: add XENFEAT_ARM_SMCCC_supported feature

[Sergej Proskurin]

Hi Volodymyr,


On 08/31/2017 04:58 PM, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
> Hi Sergej
>
> On 31.08.17 16:51, Sergej Proskurin wrote:
>> Hi Volodymyr,
>>
>>
>> On 08/31/2017 02:44 PM, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
>>> Hello Sergej,
>>>
>>> On 31.08.17 15:20, Sergej Proskurin wrote:
 Hi Volodymyr, hi Julien,


 On 08/24/2017 07:25 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
>
>
> On 21/08/17 21:27, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
>> This feature indicates that hypervisor is compatible with ARM
>> SMC calling convention. Hypervisor will not inject an undefined
>> instruction exception if an invalid SMC function were called and
>> will not crash a domain if an invlalid HVC functions were called.
>
> s/invlalid/invalid/
>
> The last sentence is misleading. Xen will still inject and undefined
> instruction for some SMC/HVC. You may want to rework it to make it
> clear.
>

 Now that you say that Xen will still inject an undefined instruction
 exception for some SMCs, I have a to ask for which exactly?
>>> For ones that are compatible with ARM SMCCC [1]. E.g if you are
>>> running SMCCC-compatible system and you are calling SMC/HVC with
>>> immediate value 0, then you are safe.
>>>
>>
>> Alright, as far as I understand this is exactly what I do right now. I
>> inject an SMC that is encoded as 0xD403.
> Actually, this patch series are not merged yet, so no SMCCC support
> right. But this should not a problem in your case.
>
 I might be off topic here, so please tell me if you believe this is
 not
 the right place for this question. In this case I will open an new
 thread. Right now, I am working with the previous implementation of
 do_trap_smc that was extended in this patch. Yet, as far as I
 understand, the behavior should not change, which is why I am asking
 this quesiton in this thread.
>>> If you are talking about forwarding SMC exception to VM monitor, then
>>> yes, that should not change.
>>
>> Yes, exactly. Sorry, I forgot to mention that I have a modified
>> xen-access version running in dom0 that registers an SMC monitor and
>> also increases the PC by 4 (or dependent on the case, simply leaves it
>> as it is) on every SMC trap.
> Aha, I see. I never was able to test this feature fully. I played with
> my own VM monitor, when I tried to offload SMC handling to another
> domain. But I had to comment out most of the VM monitor code in XEN.
>
>>>
 Currently, I am working on SMC guest injections and trying to
 understand
 the resulting behavior. Every time, right after the execution of an
 injected SMC instruction, the guest traps into the undefined
 instruction
 exception handler in EL1 and I simply don't understand why. As far
 as I
 understand, as soon an injected SMC instruction gets executed, it
 should
 _transparently_ trap into the hypervisor (assuming MDCR_EL2.TDE is
 set).
 As soon as the hypervisor returns (e.g. to PC+4 or to the trapping PC
 that now contains the original instruction instead of the injected
 SMC),
 the guest should simply continue its execution.
>>> Hm. What do you mean under "SMC instruction injection?".
>>
>> My code runs in dom0 and "injects" an SMC instruction to predefined
>> addresses inside the guest as to simulate software breakpoints. By this,
>> I mean that the code replaces the original guest instruction at a
>> certain address with an SMC. Think of a debugger that uses software
>> breakpoints. The idea is to put back the original instruction right
>> after the SMC gets called, so that the guest can continue with its
>> execution. You can find more information about that in [0], yet please
>> consider that I try to trap the SMC directly in Xen instead of
>> TrustZone.
> Yep, I see. Immediate question: do you flush icache after you put
> original instruction back? 

Yeap. But the current behavior does not let me to go this far, as I the
system jumps into the interrupt handler and single-steps the handler
instead of the instruction of interest.

> Then I can't see, why this should not work. If only VM monitor core in
> XEN is not broken. I don't know any users of this.
> I'm just curious, why are you using SMC, not BRK instruction?
>

I use SMC instructions as the guest can register for BRK events. The
guest cannot register for SMC events. So, in order stay stealthy towards
the guest and also not to cope with BRK re-injections, SMC's seemed to
be the right choice :)

>>> Current code in hypervisor will always inject undefined instruction
>>> exception when you  call SMC (unless you installed VM monitor for the
>>> guest). Also, it will not increase PC. So, if you'll try to remove
>>> inject_undef_exception() call, you'll get into an infinite loop.
>>>
>>
>> I have a registered SMC monitor running in dom0 that does not reinject
>> the undefined instruction exception in do_trap_smc(). So there is no
>> indefinite loop at this point. What I 

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 10/11] public: add XENFEAT_ARM_SMCCC_supported feature

[Volodymyr Babchuk]

Hi Sergej

On 31.08.17 16:51, Sergej Proskurin wrote:

Hi Volodymyr,


On 08/31/2017 02:44 PM, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:

Hello Sergej,

On 31.08.17 15:20, Sergej Proskurin wrote:

Hi Volodymyr, hi Julien,


On 08/24/2017 07:25 PM, Julien Grall wrote:



On 21/08/17 21:27, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:

This feature indicates that hypervisor is compatible with ARM
SMC calling convention. Hypervisor will not inject an undefined
instruction exception if an invalid SMC function were called and
will not crash a domain if an invlalid HVC functions were called.


s/invlalid/invalid/

The last sentence is misleading. Xen will still inject and undefined
instruction for some SMC/HVC. You may want to rework it to make it
clear.



Now that you say that Xen will still inject an undefined instruction
exception for some SMCs, I have a to ask for which exactly?

For ones that are compatible with ARM SMCCC [1]. E.g if you are
running SMCCC-compatible system and you are calling SMC/HVC with
immediate value 0, then you are safe.



Alright, as far as I understand this is exactly what I do right now. I
inject an SMC that is encoded as 0xD403.
Actually, this patch series are not merged yet, so no SMCCC support 
right. But this should not a problem in your case.



I might be off topic here, so please tell me if you believe this is not
the right place for this question. In this case I will open an new
thread. Right now, I am working with the previous implementation of
do_trap_smc that was extended in this patch. Yet, as far as I
understand, the behavior should not change, which is why I am asking
this quesiton in this thread.

If you are talking about forwarding SMC exception to VM monitor, then
yes, that should not change.


Yes, exactly. Sorry, I forgot to mention that I have a modified
xen-access version running in dom0 that registers an SMC monitor and
also increases the PC by 4 (or dependent on the case, simply leaves it
as it is) on every SMC trap.

Aha, I see. I never was able to test this feature fully. I played with
my own VM monitor, when I tried to offload SMC handling to another 
domain. But I had to comment out most of the VM monitor code in XEN.





Currently, I am working on SMC guest injections and trying to understand
the resulting behavior. Every time, right after the execution of an
injected SMC instruction, the guest traps into the undefined instruction
exception handler in EL1 and I simply don't understand why. As far as I
understand, as soon an injected SMC instruction gets executed, it should
_transparently_ trap into the hypervisor (assuming MDCR_EL2.TDE is set).
As soon as the hypervisor returns (e.g. to PC+4 or to the trapping PC
that now contains the original instruction instead of the injected SMC),
the guest should simply continue its execution.

Hm. What do you mean under "SMC instruction injection?".


My code runs in dom0 and "injects" an SMC instruction to predefined
addresses inside the guest as to simulate software breakpoints. By this,
I mean that the code replaces the original guest instruction at a
certain address with an SMC. Think of a debugger that uses software
breakpoints. The idea is to put back the original instruction right
after the SMC gets called, so that the guest can continue with its
execution. You can find more information about that in [0], yet please
consider that I try to trap the SMC directly in Xen instead of TrustZone.
Yep, I see. Immediate question: do you flush icache after you put 
original instruction back? Then I can't see, why this should not work. 
If only VM monitor core in XEN is not broken. I don't know any users of 
this.

I'm just curious, why are you using SMC, not BRK instruction?


Current code in hypervisor will always inject undefined instruction
exception when you  call SMC (unless you installed VM monitor for the
guest). Also, it will not increase PC. So, if you'll try to remove
inject_undef_exception() call, you'll get into an infinite loop.



I have a registered SMC monitor running in dom0 that does not reinject
the undefined instruction exception in do_trap_smc(). So there is no
indefinite loop at this point. What I see is that as soon as my code in
xen-access (dom0) increments the trapped guest PC by 4 (and also if it
doesn't) the next instruction inside the guest will be inside the undef
instruction handler (I can see that because I have implemented a single
stepping mechanism for AArch64 in Xen that gets activated right after
the guest executes the injected SMC instruction).
That's strange. Can you print whole vCPU state to determine that PC 
points to the right place? Also you can check DFAR. Probably you can 
even dump memory pointed by DFAR to make sure that you written back 
correct instruction.



Now, according to ARM DDI0487B.a D1-1873, the following holds: "If
HCR_EL2.TSC or HCR.TSC traps attempted EL1 execution of SMC instructions
to EL2, that trap has priority over this disable". So this means that if
SMCs are disabled for NS EL1, 

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 10/11] public: add XENFEAT_ARM_SMCCC_supported feature

[Sergej Proskurin]

Hi Volodymyr,


On 08/31/2017 02:44 PM, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
> Hello Sergej,
>
> On 31.08.17 15:20, Sergej Proskurin wrote:
>> Hi Volodymyr, hi Julien,
>>
>>
>> On 08/24/2017 07:25 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21/08/17 21:27, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
 This feature indicates that hypervisor is compatible with ARM
 SMC calling convention. Hypervisor will not inject an undefined
 instruction exception if an invalid SMC function were called and
 will not crash a domain if an invlalid HVC functions were called.
>>>
>>> s/invlalid/invalid/
>>>
>>> The last sentence is misleading. Xen will still inject and undefined
>>> instruction for some SMC/HVC. You may want to rework it to make it
>>> clear.
>>>
>>
>> Now that you say that Xen will still inject an undefined instruction
>> exception for some SMCs, I have a to ask for which exactly?
> For ones that are compatible with ARM SMCCC [1]. E.g if you are
> running SMCCC-compatible system and you are calling SMC/HVC with
> immediate value 0, then you are safe.
>

Alright, as far as I understand this is exactly what I do right now. I
inject an SMC that is encoded as 0xD403.

>> I might be off topic here, so please tell me if you believe this is not
>> the right place for this question. In this case I will open an new
>> thread. Right now, I am working with the previous implementation of
>> do_trap_smc that was extended in this patch. Yet, as far as I
>> understand, the behavior should not change, which is why I am asking
>> this quesiton in this thread.
> If you are talking about forwarding SMC exception to VM monitor, then
> yes, that should not change.

Yes, exactly. Sorry, I forgot to mention that I have a modified
xen-access version running in dom0 that registers an SMC monitor and
also increases the PC by 4 (or dependent on the case, simply leaves it
as it is) on every SMC trap.

>
>> Currently, I am working on SMC guest injections and trying to understand
>> the resulting behavior. Every time, right after the execution of an
>> injected SMC instruction, the guest traps into the undefined instruction
>> exception handler in EL1 and I simply don't understand why. As far as I
>> understand, as soon an injected SMC instruction gets executed, it should
>> _transparently_ trap into the hypervisor (assuming MDCR_EL2.TDE is set).
>> As soon as the hypervisor returns (e.g. to PC+4 or to the trapping PC
>> that now contains the original instruction instead of the injected SMC),
>> the guest should simply continue its execution.
> Hm. What do you mean under "SMC instruction injection?".

My code runs in dom0 and "injects" an SMC instruction to predefined
addresses inside the guest as to simulate software breakpoints. By this,
I mean that the code replaces the original guest instruction at a
certain address with an SMC. Think of a debugger that uses software
breakpoints. The idea is to put back the original instruction right
after the SMC gets called, so that the guest can continue with its
execution. You can find more information about that in [0], yet please
consider that I try to trap the SMC directly in Xen instead of TrustZone.

> Current code in hypervisor will always inject undefined instruction
> exception when you  call SMC (unless you installed VM monitor for the
> guest). Also, it will not increase PC. So, if you'll try to remove
> inject_undef_exception() call, you'll get into an infinite loop.
>

I have a registered SMC monitor running in dom0 that does not reinject
the undefined instruction exception in do_trap_smc(). So there is no
indefinite loop at this point. What I see is that as soon as my code in
xen-access (dom0) increments the trapped guest PC by 4 (and also if it
doesn't) the next instruction inside the guest will be inside the undef
instruction handler (I can see that because I have implemented a single
stepping mechanism for AArch64 in Xen that gets activated right after
the guest executes the injected SMC instruction).

>> Now, according to ARM DDI0487B.a D1-1873, the following holds: "If
>> HCR_EL2.TSC or HCR.TSC traps attempted EL1 execution of SMC instructions
>> to EL2, that trap has priority over this disable". So this means that if
>> SMCs are disabled for NS EL1, the guest will trap into the hypervisor on
>> SMC execution. Yet, since SMCs are disabled from NS EL1, the guest will
>> execute an undefined instrcution exception. Which is what I was thinking
>> about is currently happening on my ARMv8 dev board (Lemaker Hikey). On
>> the other hand I believe that it is highly unlikely that the EFI loader
>> explicitly disables SMC's for NS EL1. However, since I don't have access
>> to SCR_EL3.SMD from EL2, I can't tell whether this is the reason for the
>> behavior I am experiencing on my board or not.
> According to ARM ARM, hypervisor should trap SMC even if was disabled
> by EL3. I think, that in your case the problem is in current
> implementation of do_trap_smc()
>

Unfortunately, I don't think that this is 

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 10/11] public: add XENFEAT_ARM_SMCCC_supported feature

[Volodymyr Babchuk]

Hello Sergej,

On 31.08.17 15:20, Sergej Proskurin wrote:

Hi Volodymyr, hi Julien,


On 08/24/2017 07:25 PM, Julien Grall wrote:



On 21/08/17 21:27, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:

This feature indicates that hypervisor is compatible with ARM
SMC calling convention. Hypervisor will not inject an undefined
instruction exception if an invalid SMC function were called and
will not crash a domain if an invlalid HVC functions were called.


s/invlalid/invalid/

The last sentence is misleading. Xen will still inject and undefined
instruction for some SMC/HVC. You may want to rework it to make it clear.



Now that you say that Xen will still inject an undefined instruction
exception for some SMCs, I have a to ask for which exactly?
For ones that are compatible with ARM SMCCC [1]. E.g if you are running 
SMCCC-compatible system and you are calling SMC/HVC with immediate value 
0, then you are safe.



I might be off topic here, so please tell me if you believe this is not
the right place for this question. In this case I will open an new
thread. Right now, I am working with the previous implementation of
do_trap_smc that was extended in this patch. Yet, as far as I
understand, the behavior should not change, which is why I am asking
this quesiton in this thread.
If you are talking about forwarding SMC exception to VM monitor, then 
yes, that should not change.



Currently, I am working on SMC guest injections and trying to understand
the resulting behavior. Every time, right after the execution of an
injected SMC instruction, the guest traps into the undefined instruction
exception handler in EL1 and I simply don't understand why. As far as I
understand, as soon an injected SMC instruction gets executed, it should
_transparently_ trap into the hypervisor (assuming MDCR_EL2.TDE is set).
As soon as the hypervisor returns (e.g. to PC+4 or to the trapping PC
that now contains the original instruction instead of the injected SMC),
the guest should simply continue its execution.

Hm. What do you mean under "SMC instruction injection?".
Current code in hypervisor will always inject undefined instruction 
exception when you  call SMC (unless you installed VM monitor for the 
guest). Also, it will not increase PC. So, if you'll try to remove 
inject_undef_exception() call, you'll get into an infinite loop.



Now, according to ARM DDI0487B.a D1-1873, the following holds: "If
HCR_EL2.TSC or HCR.TSC traps attempted EL1 execution of SMC instructions
to EL2, that trap has priority over this disable". So this means that if
SMCs are disabled for NS EL1, the guest will trap into the hypervisor on
SMC execution. Yet, since SMCs are disabled from NS EL1, the guest will
execute an undefined instrcution exception. Which is what I was thinking
about is currently happening on my ARMv8 dev board (Lemaker Hikey). On
the other hand I believe that it is highly unlikely that the EFI loader
explicitly disables SMC's for NS EL1. However, since I don't have access
to SCR_EL3.SMD from EL2, I can't tell whether this is the reason for the
behavior I am experiencing on my board or not.
According to ARM ARM, hypervisor should trap SMC even if was disabled by 
EL3. I think, that in your case the problem is in current implementation 
of do_trap_smc()



It would be of great help if you would provide me with some more clarity
on my case. I am sure that I have missed something that simply needs
clarification. Thank you very much in advance.
I don't quite understood, what you are trying to achieve. But I think 
that pair of printk()s in do_trap_smc() will reveal much.



[1] 
http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.den0028b/ARM_DEN0028B_SMC_Calling_Convention.pdf


___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 10/11] public: add XENFEAT_ARM_SMCCC_supported feature

[Sergej Proskurin]

Hi Volodymyr, hi Julien,


On 08/24/2017 07:25 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
>
>
> On 21/08/17 21:27, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
>> This feature indicates that hypervisor is compatible with ARM
>> SMC calling convention. Hypervisor will not inject an undefined
>> instruction exception if an invalid SMC function were called and
>> will not crash a domain if an invlalid HVC functions were called.
>
> s/invlalid/invalid/
>
> The last sentence is misleading. Xen will still inject and undefined
> instruction for some SMC/HVC. You may want to rework it to make it clear.
>

Now that you say that Xen will still inject an undefined instruction
exception for some SMCs, I have a to ask for which exactly?
I might be off topic here, so please tell me if you believe this is not
the right place for this question. In this case I will open an new
thread. Right now, I am working with the previous implementation of
do_trap_smc that was extended in this patch. Yet, as far as I
understand, the behavior should not change, which is why I am asking
this quesiton in this thread.

Currently, I am working on SMC guest injections and trying to understand
the resulting behavior. Every time, right after the execution of an
injected SMC instruction, the guest traps into the undefined instruction
exception handler in EL1 and I simply don't understand why. As far as I
understand, as soon an injected SMC instruction gets executed, it should
_transparently_ trap into the hypervisor (assuming MDCR_EL2.TDE is set).
As soon as the hypervisor returns (e.g. to PC+4 or to the trapping PC
that now contains the original instruction instead of the injected SMC),
the guest should simply continue its execution.

Now, according to ARM DDI0487B.a D1-1873, the following holds: "If
HCR_EL2.TSC or HCR.TSC traps attempted EL1 execution of SMC instructions
to EL2, that trap has priority over this disable". So this means that if
SMCs are disabled for NS EL1, the guest will trap into the hypervisor on
SMC execution. Yet, since SMCs are disabled from NS EL1, the guest will
execute an undefined instrcution exception. Which is what I was thinking
about is currently happening on my ARMv8 dev board (Lemaker Hikey). On
the other hand I believe that it is highly unlikely that the EFI loader
explicitly disables SMC's for NS EL1. However, since I don't have access
to SCR_EL3.SMD from EL2, I can't tell whether this is the reason for the
behavior I am experiencing on my board or not.

It would be of great help if you would provide me with some more clarity
on my case. I am sure that I have missed something that simply needs
clarification. Thank you very much in advance.

Thanks,
~Sergej


___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 10/11] public: add XENFEAT_ARM_SMCCC_supported feature

[Julien Grall]

On 21/08/17 21:27, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:

This feature indicates that hypervisor is compatible with ARM
SMC calling convention. Hypervisor will not inject an undefined
instruction exception if an invalid SMC function were called and
will not crash a domain if an invlalid HVC functions were called.


s/invlalid/invalid/

The last sentence is misleading. Xen will still inject and undefined 
instruction for some SMC/HVC. You may want to rework it to make it clear.




Signed-off-by: Volodymyr Babchuk 
---
 xen/include/public/features.h | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/xen/include/public/features.h b/xen/include/public/features.h
index 2110b04..1a989b8 100644
--- a/xen/include/public/features.h
+++ b/xen/include/public/features.h
@@ -102,6 +102,9 @@
 /* Guest can use XENMEMF_vnode to specify virtual node for memory op. */
 #define XENFEAT_memory_op_vnode_supported 13

+/* arm: Hypervisor supports ARM SMC calling convention. */
+#define XENFEAT_ARM_SMCCC_supported   14
+
 #define XENFEAT_NR_SUBMAPS 1

 #endif /* __XEN_PUBLIC_FEATURES_H__ */



Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

[Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 10/11] public: add XENFEAT_ARM_SMCCC_supported feature

[Volodymyr Babchuk]

This feature indicates that hypervisor is compatible with ARM
SMC calling convention. Hypervisor will not inject an undefined
instruction exception if an invalid SMC function were called and
will not crash a domain if an invlalid HVC functions were called.

Signed-off-by: Volodymyr Babchuk 
---
 xen/include/public/features.h | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/xen/include/public/features.h b/xen/include/public/features.h
index 2110b04..1a989b8 100644
--- a/xen/include/public/features.h
+++ b/xen/include/public/features.h
@@ -102,6 +102,9 @@
 /* Guest can use XENMEMF_vnode to specify virtual node for memory op. */
 #define XENFEAT_memory_op_vnode_supported 13
 
+/* arm: Hypervisor supports ARM SMC calling convention. */
+#define XENFEAT_ARM_SMCCC_supported   14
+
 #define XENFEAT_NR_SUBMAPS 1
 
 #endif /* __XEN_PUBLIC_FEATURES_H__ */
-- 
2.7.4


___
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel