[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v7 9/10] KVM: arm64: docs: document KVM support of pointer authentication
Hi Julien/Kristina,

On 3/21/19 2:26 AM, Kristina Martsenko wrote:
> On 20/03/2019 18:06, Julien Thierry wrote:
>> On 20/03/2019 15:04, Kristina Martsenko wrote:
>>> On 20/03/2019 13:37, Julien Thierry wrote:
>>>> Hi Amit,
>>>> On 19/03/2019 08:30, Amit Daniel Kachhap wrote:
>>>>> This adds sections for KVM API extension for pointer authentication.
>>>>> A brief description about usage of pointer authentication for KVM guests
>>>>> is added in the arm64 documentations.
>>> [...]
>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
>>>>> index 7de9eee..b5c66bc 100644
>>>>> --- a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
>>>>> @@ -2659,6 +2659,12 @@ Possible features:
>>>>> Depends on KVM_CAP_ARM_PSCI_0_2.
>>>>> - KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3: Emulate PMUv3 for the CPU.
>>>>> Depends on KVM_CAP_ARM_PMU_V3.
>>>>> + Enables Pointer authentication for the CPU.
>>>>> + Depends on KVM_CAP_ARM_PTRAUTH and only on arm64 architecture. If
>>>>> + set, then the KVM guest allows the execution of pointer authentication
>>>>> + instructions. Otherwise, KVM treats these instructions as undefined.
>>>> Overall I feel one could easily get confused to whether
>>>> PTRAUTH_ADDRESS/GENERIC are two individual features, whether one is a
>>>> superset of the other, if the names are just an alias of one another, etc...
>>>> I think the doc should at least stress out that *both* flags are
>>>> required to enable ptrauth in a guest. However it raises the question,
>>>> if we don't plan to support the features individually (because we
>>>> can't), should we really expose two feature flags? I seems odd to
>>>> introduce two flags that only do something if used together...
>>> Why can't we support the features individually? For example, if we ever
>>> get a system where all CPUs support address authentication and none of
>>> them support generic authentication, then we could still support address
>>> authentication in the guest.
>> That's a good point, I didn't think of that.
>> Although, currently we don't have a way to detect that we are in such a
>> configuration. So as is, both flags are required to enable either
>> feature, and I feel the documentation should be clear on that aspect.
> For now we only support enabling both features together, so both flags
> need to be set. I agree that the documentation should be made clear on this.
> In the future, if we need to, we can add "negative" cpucaps to detect
> that a feature is absent on all CPUs.
>> Another option would be to introduce a flag that enables both for now,
>> and if one day we decide to support the configuration you mentioned we
>> could add "more modular" flags that allow you to control those features
>> individually. While a bit cumbersome, I would find that less awkward
>> than having two flags that only do something if both are present.
> That would work too.
> I find it more logical to have two flags since there are two features
> (two ID register fields), and KVM enables two features for the guest.
> The fact that KVM does not currently support enabling them separately is
> a KVM implementation choice, and could change in the future.
Kristina, this comments of yours is actually what this patch series is
trying to do. I should have added more details about the necessity of
keeping two flags and enhancement of them is actually a future work.

Amit Daniel
> Thanks,
> Kristina

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-21 07:42    [W:0.111 / U:3.868 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site