On Tue, 07 Feb 2023 17:50:58 +0000,
James Morse [off-list ref] wrote:

Hi Marc,

On 05/02/2023 10:12, Marc Zyngier wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 03 Feb 2023 13:50:40 +0000,
James Morse [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

From: Jean-Philippe Brucker <redacted>

When capability KVM_CAP_ARM_HVC_TO_USER is available, userspace can
request to handle all hypercalls that aren't handled by KVM. With the
help of another capability, this will allow userspace to handle PSCI
calls.

quoted

On top of Oliver's ask not to make this a blanket "steal everything",
but instead to have an actual request for ranges of forwarded
hypercalls:

quoted

Notes on this implementation:

* A similar mechanism was proposed for SDEI some time ago [1]. This RFC
  generalizes the idea to all hypercalls, since that was suggested on
  the list [2, 3].

* We're reusing kvm_run.hypercall. I copied x0-x5 into
  kvm_run.hypercall.args[] to help userspace but I'm tempted to remove
  this, because:
  - Most user handlers will need to write results back into the
    registers (x0-x3 for SMCCC), so if we keep this shortcut we should
    go all the way and read them back on return to kernel.
  - QEMU doesn't care about this shortcut, it pulls all vcpu regs before
    handling the call.
  - SMCCC uses x0-x16 for parameters.
  x0 does contain the SMCCC function ID and may be useful for fast
  dispatch, we could keep that plus the immediate number.

* Add a flag in the kvm_run.hypercall telling whether this is HVC or
  SMC?  Can be added later in those bottom longmode and pad fields.

quoted

We definitely need this. A nested hypervisor can (and does) use SMCs
as the conduit.

Christoffer's comments last time round on this was that EL2 guests
get SMC with this, and EL1 guests get HVC. The VMM could never get
both...

I agree with the first half of the statement (EL2 guest using SMC),
but limiting EL1 guests to HVC is annoying. On systems that have a
secure side, it would make sense to be able to route the guest's SMC
calls to userspace and allow it to emulate/proxy/deny such calls.

This would solve the 10 year old question of "how do we allow a guest
to call into secure services...

quoted

The question is whether they represent two distinct
namespaces or not. I *think* we can unify them, but someone should
check and maybe get clarification from the owners of the SMCCC spec.

i.e. the VMM requests 0xC400_0000:0xC400_001F regardless of SMC/HVC?

I don't yet see how a VMM could get HVC out of a virtual-EL2 guest....

My statement was badly formulated, and I conflated the need for SMC in
EL2 guests with the (separate) need to handle SMC for EL1 guests.

quoted

quoted

* On top of this we could share with userspace which HVC ranges are
  available and which ones are handled by KVM. That can actually be added
  independently, through a vCPU/VM device attribute which doesn't consume
  a new ioctl:
  - userspace issues HAS_ATTR ioctl on the vcpu fd to query whether this
    feature is available.
  - userspace queries the number N of HVC ranges using one GET_ATTR.
  - userspace passes an array of N ranges using another GET_ATTR. The
    array is filled and returned by KVM.

quoted

As mentioned above, I think this interface should go both ways.
Userspace should request the forwarding of a certain range of
hypercalls via a similar SET_ATTR interface.

Yup, I'll sync up with Oliver about that.

quoted

Another question is how we migrate VMs that have these forwarding
requirements. Do we expect the VMM to replay the forwarding as part of
the setting up on the other side? Or do we save/restore this via a
firmware pseudo-register?

Pfff. VMMs problem. Enabling these things means it has its own
internal state to migrate.  (is this vCPU on or off?), I doubt it
needs reminding that the state exists.

I'm perfectly OK with the VMM being in the driving seat here and that
it'd have to replay its own state. But it needs some level of
documentation.

That said, Salil is looking at making this work with migration in Qemu.

Yup, that'd be needed.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel