lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 05/15] KVM: s390: enable/disable AP interpretive execution
From
Date
On 04/18/2018 04:31 AM, Pierre Morel wrote:
> On 17/04/2018 20:11, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>> On 04/17/2018 12:55 PM, Pierre Morel wrote:
>>> On 17/04/2018 18:22, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>>>> On 04/17/2018 12:13 PM, Pierre Morel wrote:
>>>>> On 17/04/2018 17:02, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/16/2018 06:51 AM, Pierre Morel wrote:
>>>>>>> On 15/04/2018 23:22, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>>>>>>>> The VFIO AP device model exploits interpretive execution of AP
>>>>>>>> instructions (APIE) to provide guests passthrough access to AP
>>>>>>>> devices. This patch introduces a new interface to enable and
>>>>>>>> disable APIE.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> arch/s390/include/asm/kvm-ap.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>> arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 1 +
>>>>>>>> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-ap.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 9 +++++++++
>>>>>>>> 4 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm-ap.h
>>>>>>>> b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm-ap.h
>>>>>>>> index 736e93e..a6c092e 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm-ap.h
>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm-ap.h
>>>>>>>> @@ -35,4 +35,20 @@
>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>> void kvm_ap_build_crycbd(struct kvm *kvm);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +/**
>>>>>>>> + * kvm_ap_interpret_instructions
>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>> + * Indicate whether AP instructions shall be interpreted. If
>>>>>>>> they are not
>>>>>>>> + * interpreted, all AP instructions will be intercepted and
>>>>>>>> routed back to
>>>>>>>> + * userspace.
>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>> + * @kvm: the virtual machine attributes
>>>>>>>> + * @enable: indicates whether AP instructions are to be
>>>>>>>> interpreted (true) or
>>>>>>>> + * or not (false).
>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>> + * Returns 0 if completed successfully; otherwise, returns
>>>>>>>> -EOPNOTSUPP
>>>>>>>> + * indicating that AP instructions are not installed on the
>>>>>>>> guest.
>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>> +int kvm_ap_interpret_instructions(struct kvm *kvm, bool enable);
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> #endif /* _ASM_KVM_AP */
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>>>>>>> b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>>>>>>> index 3162783..5470685 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>>>>>>>> @@ -715,6 +715,7 @@ struct kvm_s390_crypto {
>>>>>>>> __u32 crycbd;
>>>>>>>> __u8 aes_kw;
>>>>>>>> __u8 dea_kw;
>>>>>>>> + __u8 apie;
>>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> #define APCB0_MASK_SIZE 1
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-ap.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-ap.c
>>>>>>>> index 991bae4..55d11b5 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-ap.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-ap.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -58,3 +58,23 @@ void kvm_ap_build_crycbd(struct kvm *kvm)
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(kvm_ap_build_crycbd);
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +int kvm_ap_interpret_instructions(struct kvm *kvm, bool enable)
>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>> + int ret = 0;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> + mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> + if (!test_kvm_cpu_feat(kvm, KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_AP)) {
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do we really need to test CPU_FEAT_AP?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes we do.
>>>>>
>>>>> really? why?
>>>>
>>>> The KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_AP will not be enabled by KVM if the AP
>>>> instructions are not installed on the host. I assume - but have
>>>> no way of verifying - that if the AP instructions are not installed
>>>> on the host, that interpretation would fail. Do you know what would
>>>> happen if AP instructions are interpreted when not installed on
>>>> the host?
>>>
>>> If the host has no AP instructions (his ECA.28=0) but it set ECA.28
>>> for a guest,
>>> there will be no AP instructions available in the guest.
>>
>> Then there's the answer to your question; this is why we to test
>> CPU_FEAT_AP.
>
> We can postpone this discussion when we discuss on VSIE.
> For this specific call I just wanted to point out that obviously this
> function should not
> be called if the guest has no AP instructions.

I disagree, at least as far as the way things are currently designed.
Whether AP instructions
are interpreted or not is determined by the vfio_ap device driver. The
device driver should not
be required to have "knowledge" about how a guest is configured in KVM
which is why I
encapsulated most of the AP guest configuration in kvm-ap.c. Besides,
the function above allows
setting of AP interpretation only if CPU_FEAT_AP is enabled.

Having said that, I may remove this function since - as you pointed out
earlier - AP instructions
are interpreted by default if CPU_FEAT_AP is enabled, so there will be
no need to set this at
this time.

>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I understand that KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_AP means AP instructions
>>>>>>> are interpreted.
>>>>>>> shouldn't we add this information in the name?
>>>>>>> like KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_APIE
>>>>>>
>>>>>> KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_AP does NOT mean AP instructions are
>>>>>> interpreted, it means
>>>>>> AP instructions are installed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right same error I made all along this review.
>>>>> But AFAIK it means AP instructions are provided to the guest.
>>>>> Then should this function be called if the guest has no AP
>>>>> instructions ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> + ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
>>>>>>>> + goto done;
>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> + kvm->arch.crypto.apie = enable;
>>>>>>>> + kvm_s390_vcpu_crypto_reset_all(kvm);
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +done:
>>>>>>>> + mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
>>>>>>>> + return ret;
>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(kvm_ap_interpret_instructions);
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>>>>>>> index 55cd897..1dc8566 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -1901,6 +1901,9 @@ static void kvm_s390_crypto_init(struct
>>>>>>>> kvm *kvm)
>>>>>>>> kvm->arch.crypto.crycb = &kvm->arch.sie_page2->crycb;
>>>>>>>> kvm_ap_build_crycbd(kvm);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> + /* Default setting indicating SIE shall interpret AP
>>>>>>>> instructions */
>>>>>>>> + kvm->arch.crypto.apie = 1;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> if (!test_kvm_facility(kvm, 76))
>>>>>>>> return;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> @@ -2434,6 +2437,12 @@ static void
>>>>>>>> kvm_s390_vcpu_crypto_setup(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> vcpu->arch.sie_block->crycbd =
>>>>>>>> vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.crycbd;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> + vcpu->arch.sie_block->eca &= ~ECA_APIE;
>>>>>>>> + if (vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.apie &&
>>>>>>>> + test_kvm_cpu_feat(vcpu->kvm, KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_AP))
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do we call xxx_crypto_setup() if KVM does not support AP
>>>>>>> interpretation?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, kvm_s390_vcpu_crypto_setup(vcpu) is called by
>>>>>> kvm_arch_vcpu_setup(vcpu)
>>>>>> as well as from kvm_s390_vcpu_crypto_reset_all(kvm). Calling it
>>>>>> has nothing
>>>>>> to do with whether AP interpretation is supported or not as it
>>>>>> does much
>>>>>> more than that, including setting up of wrapping keys and the
>>>>>> CRYCBD.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, still the same error I made about CPU_FEAT_AP meaning AP
>>>>> instructions in the guest
>>>>> and not AP interpretation available.
>>>>> Could apie be set if AP instruction are not supported?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> + vcpu->arch.sie_block->eca |= ECA_APIE;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> if (!test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 76))
>>>>>>>> return;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-19 16:31    [W:0.094 / U:0.340 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site