lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/7] arm64/kvm: context-switch ptrauth registers
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 7:16 PM Christoffer Dall
<christoffer.dall@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 10:32:12PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 09:37:25AM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 04:17:55PM +0530, Amit Daniel Kachhap wrote:
> > > > From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> > > >
> > > > When pointer authentication is supported, a guest may wish to use it.
> > > > This patch adds the necessary KVM infrastructure for this to work.
> > > >
> > > > When we schedule a vcpu, we enable guest usage of pointer
> > > > authentication instructions and accesses to the keys. After these are
> > > > enabled, we allow context-switching the keys.
> > > >
> > > > Pointer authentication consists of address authentication and generic
> > > > authentication, and CPUs in a system might have varied support for
> > > > either. Where support for either feature is not uniform, it is hidden
> > > > from guests via ID register emulation, as a result of the cpufeature
> > > > framework in the host.
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, address authentication and generic authentication cannot
> > > > be trapped separately, as the architecture provides a single EL2 trap
> > > > covering both. If we wish to expose one without the other, we cannot
> > > > prevent a (badly-written) guest from intermittently using a feature
> > > > which is not uniformly supported (when scheduled on a physical CPU which
> > > > supports the relevant feature). When the guest is scheduled on a
> > > > physical CPU lacking the feature, these attempts will result in an UNDEF
> > > > being taken by the guest.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@arm.com>
> > > > Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
> > > > Cc: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@arm.com>
> > > > Cc: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> > [...]
> > > Two questions:
> > >
> > > - Can we limit all ptrauth functionality to VHE systems so that we
> > > don't need to touch the non-VHE path and so that we don't need any of
> > > the __hyp_text stuff?
> >
> > I would say yes. ARMv8.3 implies v8.1, so can enable ptrauth only when
> > VHE is built into the kernel and present in the CPU implementation.
> >
>
> Sounds good.
>
> > > - Can we move all the save/restore logic to vcpu load/put as long as
> > > the host kernel itself isn't using ptrauth, and if the host kernel at
> > > some point begins to use ptrauth, can we have a hook to save/restore
> > > at that time (similar to what we do for FPSIMD) to avoid this
> > > overhead on every switch?
> >
> > We will probably enable ptrauth for the kernel as well fairly soon, so I
> > don't think we should base the KVM assumption on the no ptrauth in
> > kernel use-case.
> >
>
> I assume in this case ptrauth will be used for all of the kernel,
> including most of the KVM code?
>
> In that case, I wonder if we always need to context-switch ptrauth
> configruation state or if we can be lazy until the guest actually uses
> the feature?

Sorry for the delayed reply. Lazy switching is possible and was
present in earlier Mark's Rutland v2 version.
However removed it from v3 version as a mandatory user option to
enable ptrauth is added and to make it look
simpler. But yes both can exist together but with 1 trap cost if guest
always uses ptrauth.

Thanks,
Amit
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Christoffer

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-15 15:35    [W:1.285 / U:0.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site