Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] arm64: Add PSCI v1.3 SYSTEM_OFF2 support for hibernation

From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
	Mostafa Saleh <smostafa@google.com>,
	Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
	 linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,  linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] arm64: Add PSCI v1.3 SYSTEM_OFF2 support for hibernation
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:36:41 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3180b428f221aa2551923688f5dc390a26d054e9.camel@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <86plvrz91f.wl-maz@kernel.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4360 bytes --]

On Mon, 2024-03-18 at 18:31 +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:15:36 +0000,
> David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
> > 
> > [1  <text/plain; UTF-8 (quoted-printable)>]
> > On Mon, 2024-03-18 at 17:41 +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:26:07 +0000,
> > > David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > [1  <text/plain; UTF-8 (quoted-printable)>]
> > > > On Mon, 2024-03-18 at 16:57 +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > There *is* a way for a VMM to opt *out* of newer PSCI versions... by 
> > > > > > setting a per-vCPU "special" register that actually ends up setting the 
> > > > > > PSCI version KVM-wide. Quite why this isn't just a simple KVM_CAP, I 
> > > > > > have no idea.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Because the expectations are that the VMM can blindly save/restore the
> > > > > guest's state, including the PSCI version, and restore that blindly.
> > > > > KVM CAPs are just a really bad design pattern for this sort of things.
> > > > 
> > > > Hm, am I missing something here? Does the *guest* get to set the PSCI
> > > > version somehow, and opt into the latest version that it understands
> > > > regardless of what the firmware/host can support?
> > > 
> > > No. The *VMM* sets the PSCI version by writing to a pseudo register.
> > > It means that when the guest migrates, the VMM saves and restores that
> > > version, and the guest doesn't see any change.
> > 
> > And when you boot a guest image which has been working for years under
> > a new kernel+KVM, your guest suddenly experiences a new PSCI version.
> > As I said that's not just new optional functions; it's potentially even
> > returning new error codes to the functions that said guest was already
> > using.
> 
> If you want to stick to a given PSCI version, you write the version
> you want.
> 
> > 
> > And when you *hibernate* a guest and then launch it again under a newer
> > kernel+KVM, it experiences the same incompatibility.
> > 
> > Unless the VMM realises this problem and opts *out* of the newer KVM
> > behaviour, of course. This is very much unlike how we *normally* expose
> > new KVM capabilities.
> 
> This was discussed at length 5 or 6 years ago (opt-in vs opt-out).
> 
> The feedback from QEMU (which is the only public VMM that does
> anything remotely useful with this) was that opt-out was a better
> model, specially as PSCI is the conduit for advertising the Spectre
> mitigations and users (such as certain cloud vendors) were pretty keen
> on guests seeing the mitigations advertised *by default*.

OK.

> And if you can spot any form of "normality" in the KVM interface, I'll
> buy you whatever beer you want. It is all inconsistent crap, so I
> think we're in pretty good company here.

I'll give you that one :)

> > 
> > > > I don't think we ever aspired to be able to hand an arbitrary KVM fd to
> > > > a userspace VMM and have the VMM be able to drive that VM without
> > > > having any a priori context, did we?
> > > 
> > > Arbitrary? No. This is actually very specific and pretty well
> > > documented.
> > > 
> > > Also, to answer your question about why we treat 0.1 differently from
> > > 0.2+: 0.1 didn't specify the PSCI SMC/HCR encoding, meaning that KVM
> > > implemented something that was never fully specified. The VMM has to
> > > provide firmware tables that describe that. With 0.2+, there is a
> > > standard encoding for all functions, and the VMM doesn't have to
> > > provide the encoding to the guest.
> > 
> > Gotcha. So for that case we were *forced* to do things correctly and
> > allow userspace to opt-in to the capability. While for 0.2 onwards we
> > got away with this awfulness of silently upgrading the version without
> > VMM consent.
> > 
> > I was hoping to just follow the existing model of SYSTEM_RESET2 and not
> > have to touch this awfulness with a barge-pole, but sure, whatever you
> > want.
> 
> Unless I'm reading the whole thing wrong (which isn't impossible given
> that I'm jet-lagged to my eyeballs), SYSTEM_RESET2 doesn't have any
> form of configuration. If PSCI 1.1 is selected, SYSTEM_RESET2 is
> available. So that'd be the model to follow.

Sorry, that was supposed to be SYSTEM_SUSPEND not SYSTEM_RESET2. But
OK. 

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 5965 bytes --]