* [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Prevent mixed-width VM creation @ 2021-05-20 12:22 ` Marc Zyngier 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Marc Zyngier @ 2021-05-20 12:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, kvmarm Cc: James Morse, Suzuki K Poulose, Alexandru Elisei, kernel-team, Steven Price, stable It looks like we have tolerated creating mixed-width VMs since... forever. However, that was never the intention, and we'd rather not have to support that pointless complexity. Forbid such a setup by making sure all the vcpus have the same register width. Reported-by: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org --- arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c index 956cdc240148..1cf308be6ef3 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c @@ -166,6 +166,25 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_enable_ptrauth(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) return 0; } +static bool vcpu_allowed_register_width(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) +{ + struct kvm_vcpu *tmp; + int i; + + /* Check that the vcpus are either all 32bit or all 64bit */ + kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, tmp, vcpu->kvm) { + bool w; + + w = test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, tmp->arch.features); + w ^= test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, vcpu->arch.features); + + if (w) + return false; + } + + return true; +} + /** * kvm_reset_vcpu - sets core registers and sys_regs to reset value * @vcpu: The VCPU pointer @@ -217,13 +236,14 @@ int kvm_reset_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) } } + if (!vcpu_allowed_register_width(vcpu)) { + ret = -EINVAL; + goto out; + } + switch (vcpu->arch.target) { default: if (test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, vcpu->arch.features)) { - if (!cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1)) { - ret = -EINVAL; - goto out; - } pstate = VCPU_RESET_PSTATE_SVC; } else { pstate = VCPU_RESET_PSTATE_EL1; -- 2.30.2 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Prevent mixed-width VM creation @ 2021-05-20 12:22 ` Marc Zyngier 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Marc Zyngier @ 2021-05-20 12:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, kvmarm Cc: James Morse, Suzuki K Poulose, Alexandru Elisei, kernel-team, Steven Price, stable It looks like we have tolerated creating mixed-width VMs since... forever. However, that was never the intention, and we'd rather not have to support that pointless complexity. Forbid such a setup by making sure all the vcpus have the same register width. Reported-by: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org --- arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c index 956cdc240148..1cf308be6ef3 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c @@ -166,6 +166,25 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_enable_ptrauth(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) return 0; } +static bool vcpu_allowed_register_width(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) +{ + struct kvm_vcpu *tmp; + int i; + + /* Check that the vcpus are either all 32bit or all 64bit */ + kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, tmp, vcpu->kvm) { + bool w; + + w = test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, tmp->arch.features); + w ^= test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, vcpu->arch.features); + + if (w) + return false; + } + + return true; +} + /** * kvm_reset_vcpu - sets core registers and sys_regs to reset value * @vcpu: The VCPU pointer @@ -217,13 +236,14 @@ int kvm_reset_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) } } + if (!vcpu_allowed_register_width(vcpu)) { + ret = -EINVAL; + goto out; + } + switch (vcpu->arch.target) { default: if (test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, vcpu->arch.features)) { - if (!cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1)) { - ret = -EINVAL; - goto out; - } pstate = VCPU_RESET_PSTATE_SVC; } else { pstate = VCPU_RESET_PSTATE_EL1; -- 2.30.2 _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Prevent mixed-width VM creation @ 2021-05-20 12:22 ` Marc Zyngier 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Marc Zyngier @ 2021-05-20 12:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel, kvmarm; +Cc: kernel-team, stable, Steven Price It looks like we have tolerated creating mixed-width VMs since... forever. However, that was never the intention, and we'd rather not have to support that pointless complexity. Forbid such a setup by making sure all the vcpus have the same register width. Reported-by: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org --- arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c index 956cdc240148..1cf308be6ef3 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c @@ -166,6 +166,25 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_enable_ptrauth(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) return 0; } +static bool vcpu_allowed_register_width(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) +{ + struct kvm_vcpu *tmp; + int i; + + /* Check that the vcpus are either all 32bit or all 64bit */ + kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, tmp, vcpu->kvm) { + bool w; + + w = test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, tmp->arch.features); + w ^= test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, vcpu->arch.features); + + if (w) + return false; + } + + return true; +} + /** * kvm_reset_vcpu - sets core registers and sys_regs to reset value * @vcpu: The VCPU pointer @@ -217,13 +236,14 @@ int kvm_reset_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) } } + if (!vcpu_allowed_register_width(vcpu)) { + ret = -EINVAL; + goto out; + } + switch (vcpu->arch.target) { default: if (test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, vcpu->arch.features)) { - if (!cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1)) { - ret = -EINVAL; - goto out; - } pstate = VCPU_RESET_PSTATE_SVC; } else { pstate = VCPU_RESET_PSTATE_EL1; -- 2.30.2 _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Prevent mixed-width VM creation 2021-05-20 12:22 ` Marc Zyngier (?) @ 2021-05-20 12:44 ` Mark Rutland -1 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Mark Rutland @ 2021-05-20 12:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marc Zyngier; +Cc: linux-arm-kernel, kvmarm, kernel-team, stable, Steven Price On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 01:22:53PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > It looks like we have tolerated creating mixed-width VMs since... > forever. However, that was never the intention, and we'd rather > not have to support that pointless complexity. > > Forbid such a setup by making sure all the vcpus have the same > register width. > > Reported-by: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com> > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > --- > arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c > index 956cdc240148..1cf308be6ef3 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c > @@ -166,6 +166,25 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_enable_ptrauth(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > return 0; > } > > +static bool vcpu_allowed_register_width(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > +{ > + struct kvm_vcpu *tmp; > + int i; > + > + /* Check that the vcpus are either all 32bit or all 64bit */ > + kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, tmp, vcpu->kvm) { > + bool w; > + > + w = test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, tmp->arch.features); > + w ^= test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, vcpu->arch.features); > + > + if (w) > + return false; > + } I think this is wrong for a single-cpu VM. In that case, the loop will have a single iteration, and tmp == vcpu, so w must be 0 regardless of the value of arch.features. IIUC that doesn't prevent KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT being set when we don't have the ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1 cap, unless that's checked elsewhere? How about something like: | static bool vcpu_allowed_register_width(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) | { | bool is_32bit = vcpu_features_32bit(vcpu); | struct kvm_vcpu *tmp; | int i; | | if (!cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1) && is_32bit) | return false; | | kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, tmp, vcpu->kvm) { | if (is_32bit != vcpu_features_32bit(tmp)) | return false; | } | | return true; | } ... with a helper in <asm/kvm_emulate.h> like: | static bool vcpu_features_32bit(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) | { | return test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, vcpu->arch.features); | } ... or | static inline bool vcpu_has_feature(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int feature) | { | return test_bit(feature, vcpu->arch.features); | } ... so that we can avoid the line splitting required by the length of the test_bit() expression? Thanks, Mark. > + > + return true; > +} > + > /** > * kvm_reset_vcpu - sets core registers and sys_regs to reset value > * @vcpu: The VCPU pointer > @@ -217,13 +236,14 @@ int kvm_reset_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > } > } > > + if (!vcpu_allowed_register_width(vcpu)) { > + ret = -EINVAL; > + goto out; > + } > + > switch (vcpu->arch.target) { > default: > if (test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, vcpu->arch.features)) { > - if (!cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1)) { > - ret = -EINVAL; > - goto out; > - } > pstate = VCPU_RESET_PSTATE_SVC; > } else { > pstate = VCPU_RESET_PSTATE_EL1; > -- > 2.30.2 > > _______________________________________________ > kvmarm mailing list > kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Prevent mixed-width VM creation @ 2021-05-20 12:44 ` Mark Rutland 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Mark Rutland @ 2021-05-20 12:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marc Zyngier; +Cc: linux-arm-kernel, kvmarm, kernel-team, stable, Steven Price On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 01:22:53PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > It looks like we have tolerated creating mixed-width VMs since... > forever. However, that was never the intention, and we'd rather > not have to support that pointless complexity. > > Forbid such a setup by making sure all the vcpus have the same > register width. > > Reported-by: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com> > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > --- > arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c > index 956cdc240148..1cf308be6ef3 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c > @@ -166,6 +166,25 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_enable_ptrauth(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > return 0; > } > > +static bool vcpu_allowed_register_width(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > +{ > + struct kvm_vcpu *tmp; > + int i; > + > + /* Check that the vcpus are either all 32bit or all 64bit */ > + kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, tmp, vcpu->kvm) { > + bool w; > + > + w = test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, tmp->arch.features); > + w ^= test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, vcpu->arch.features); > + > + if (w) > + return false; > + } I think this is wrong for a single-cpu VM. In that case, the loop will have a single iteration, and tmp == vcpu, so w must be 0 regardless of the value of arch.features. IIUC that doesn't prevent KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT being set when we don't have the ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1 cap, unless that's checked elsewhere? How about something like: | static bool vcpu_allowed_register_width(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) | { | bool is_32bit = vcpu_features_32bit(vcpu); | struct kvm_vcpu *tmp; | int i; | | if (!cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1) && is_32bit) | return false; | | kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, tmp, vcpu->kvm) { | if (is_32bit != vcpu_features_32bit(tmp)) | return false; | } | | return true; | } ... with a helper in <asm/kvm_emulate.h> like: | static bool vcpu_features_32bit(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) | { | return test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, vcpu->arch.features); | } ... or | static inline bool vcpu_has_feature(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int feature) | { | return test_bit(feature, vcpu->arch.features); | } ... so that we can avoid the line splitting required by the length of the test_bit() expression? Thanks, Mark. > + > + return true; > +} > + > /** > * kvm_reset_vcpu - sets core registers and sys_regs to reset value > * @vcpu: The VCPU pointer > @@ -217,13 +236,14 @@ int kvm_reset_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > } > } > > + if (!vcpu_allowed_register_width(vcpu)) { > + ret = -EINVAL; > + goto out; > + } > + > switch (vcpu->arch.target) { > default: > if (test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, vcpu->arch.features)) { > - if (!cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1)) { > - ret = -EINVAL; > - goto out; > - } > pstate = VCPU_RESET_PSTATE_SVC; > } else { > pstate = VCPU_RESET_PSTATE_EL1; > -- > 2.30.2 > > _______________________________________________ > kvmarm mailing list > kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Prevent mixed-width VM creation @ 2021-05-20 12:44 ` Mark Rutland 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Mark Rutland @ 2021-05-20 12:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marc Zyngier; +Cc: stable, kernel-team, kvmarm, linux-arm-kernel, Steven Price On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 01:22:53PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > It looks like we have tolerated creating mixed-width VMs since... > forever. However, that was never the intention, and we'd rather > not have to support that pointless complexity. > > Forbid such a setup by making sure all the vcpus have the same > register width. > > Reported-by: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com> > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > --- > arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c > index 956cdc240148..1cf308be6ef3 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c > @@ -166,6 +166,25 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_enable_ptrauth(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > return 0; > } > > +static bool vcpu_allowed_register_width(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > +{ > + struct kvm_vcpu *tmp; > + int i; > + > + /* Check that the vcpus are either all 32bit or all 64bit */ > + kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, tmp, vcpu->kvm) { > + bool w; > + > + w = test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, tmp->arch.features); > + w ^= test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, vcpu->arch.features); > + > + if (w) > + return false; > + } I think this is wrong for a single-cpu VM. In that case, the loop will have a single iteration, and tmp == vcpu, so w must be 0 regardless of the value of arch.features. IIUC that doesn't prevent KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT being set when we don't have the ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1 cap, unless that's checked elsewhere? How about something like: | static bool vcpu_allowed_register_width(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) | { | bool is_32bit = vcpu_features_32bit(vcpu); | struct kvm_vcpu *tmp; | int i; | | if (!cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1) && is_32bit) | return false; | | kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, tmp, vcpu->kvm) { | if (is_32bit != vcpu_features_32bit(tmp)) | return false; | } | | return true; | } ... with a helper in <asm/kvm_emulate.h> like: | static bool vcpu_features_32bit(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) | { | return test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, vcpu->arch.features); | } ... or | static inline bool vcpu_has_feature(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int feature) | { | return test_bit(feature, vcpu->arch.features); | } ... so that we can avoid the line splitting required by the length of the test_bit() expression? Thanks, Mark. > + > + return true; > +} > + > /** > * kvm_reset_vcpu - sets core registers and sys_regs to reset value > * @vcpu: The VCPU pointer > @@ -217,13 +236,14 @@ int kvm_reset_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > } > } > > + if (!vcpu_allowed_register_width(vcpu)) { > + ret = -EINVAL; > + goto out; > + } > + > switch (vcpu->arch.target) { > default: > if (test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, vcpu->arch.features)) { > - if (!cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1)) { > - ret = -EINVAL; > - goto out; > - } > pstate = VCPU_RESET_PSTATE_SVC; > } else { > pstate = VCPU_RESET_PSTATE_EL1; > -- > 2.30.2 > > _______________________________________________ > kvmarm mailing list > kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu > https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Prevent mixed-width VM creation 2021-05-20 12:44 ` Mark Rutland (?) @ 2021-05-20 12:58 ` Marc Zyngier -1 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Marc Zyngier @ 2021-05-20 12:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Rutland; +Cc: linux-arm-kernel, kvmarm, kernel-team, stable, Steven Price On Thu, 20 May 2021 13:44:34 +0100, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 01:22:53PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > It looks like we have tolerated creating mixed-width VMs since... > > forever. However, that was never the intention, and we'd rather > > not have to support that pointless complexity. > > > > Forbid such a setup by making sure all the vcpus have the same > > register width. > > > > Reported-by: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com> > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > > --- > > arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c > > index 956cdc240148..1cf308be6ef3 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c > > @@ -166,6 +166,25 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_enable_ptrauth(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > return 0; > > } > > > > +static bool vcpu_allowed_register_width(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > +{ > > + struct kvm_vcpu *tmp; > > + int i; > > + > > + /* Check that the vcpus are either all 32bit or all 64bit */ > > + kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, tmp, vcpu->kvm) { > > + bool w; > > + > > + w = test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, tmp->arch.features); > > + w ^= test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, vcpu->arch.features); > > + > > + if (w) > > + return false; > > + } > > I think this is wrong for a single-cpu VM. In that case, the loop will > have a single iteration, and tmp == vcpu, so w must be 0 regardless of > the value of arch.features. I don't immediately see what is wrong with a single-cpu VM. 'w' will be zero indeed, and we'll return that this is allowed. After all, each VM starts by being a single-CPU VM. But of course... > IIUC that doesn't prevent KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT being set when we don't > have the ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1 cap, unless that's checked elsewhere? ... I mistakenly removed the check against ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1... > > How about something like: > > | static bool vcpu_allowed_register_width(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > | { > | bool is_32bit = vcpu_features_32bit(vcpu); > | struct kvm_vcpu *tmp; > | int i; > | > | if (!cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1) && is_32bit) > | return false; > | > | kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, tmp, vcpu->kvm) { > | if (is_32bit != vcpu_features_32bit(tmp)) > | return false; > | } > | > | return true; > | } > > ... with a helper in <asm/kvm_emulate.h> like: > > | static bool vcpu_features_32bit(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > | { > | return test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, vcpu->arch.features); > | } > > ... or > > | static inline bool vcpu_has_feature(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int feature) > | { > | return test_bit(feature, vcpu->arch.features); > | } > > ... so that we can avoid the line splitting required by the length of > the test_bit() expression? Yup, looks OK to me (with a preference for the latter). Thanks, M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Prevent mixed-width VM creation @ 2021-05-20 12:58 ` Marc Zyngier 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Marc Zyngier @ 2021-05-20 12:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Rutland; +Cc: linux-arm-kernel, kvmarm, kernel-team, stable, Steven Price On Thu, 20 May 2021 13:44:34 +0100, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 01:22:53PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > It looks like we have tolerated creating mixed-width VMs since... > > forever. However, that was never the intention, and we'd rather > > not have to support that pointless complexity. > > > > Forbid such a setup by making sure all the vcpus have the same > > register width. > > > > Reported-by: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com> > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > > --- > > arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c > > index 956cdc240148..1cf308be6ef3 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c > > @@ -166,6 +166,25 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_enable_ptrauth(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > return 0; > > } > > > > +static bool vcpu_allowed_register_width(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > +{ > > + struct kvm_vcpu *tmp; > > + int i; > > + > > + /* Check that the vcpus are either all 32bit or all 64bit */ > > + kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, tmp, vcpu->kvm) { > > + bool w; > > + > > + w = test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, tmp->arch.features); > > + w ^= test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, vcpu->arch.features); > > + > > + if (w) > > + return false; > > + } > > I think this is wrong for a single-cpu VM. In that case, the loop will > have a single iteration, and tmp == vcpu, so w must be 0 regardless of > the value of arch.features. I don't immediately see what is wrong with a single-cpu VM. 'w' will be zero indeed, and we'll return that this is allowed. After all, each VM starts by being a single-CPU VM. But of course... > IIUC that doesn't prevent KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT being set when we don't > have the ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1 cap, unless that's checked elsewhere? ... I mistakenly removed the check against ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1... > > How about something like: > > | static bool vcpu_allowed_register_width(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > | { > | bool is_32bit = vcpu_features_32bit(vcpu); > | struct kvm_vcpu *tmp; > | int i; > | > | if (!cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1) && is_32bit) > | return false; > | > | kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, tmp, vcpu->kvm) { > | if (is_32bit != vcpu_features_32bit(tmp)) > | return false; > | } > | > | return true; > | } > > ... with a helper in <asm/kvm_emulate.h> like: > > | static bool vcpu_features_32bit(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > | { > | return test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, vcpu->arch.features); > | } > > ... or > > | static inline bool vcpu_has_feature(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int feature) > | { > | return test_bit(feature, vcpu->arch.features); > | } > > ... so that we can avoid the line splitting required by the length of > the test_bit() expression? Yup, looks OK to me (with a preference for the latter). 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Prevent mixed-width VM creation @ 2021-05-20 12:58 ` Marc Zyngier 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Marc Zyngier @ 2021-05-20 12:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Rutland; +Cc: stable, kernel-team, kvmarm, linux-arm-kernel, Steven Price On Thu, 20 May 2021 13:44:34 +0100, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 01:22:53PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > It looks like we have tolerated creating mixed-width VMs since... > > forever. However, that was never the intention, and we'd rather > > not have to support that pointless complexity. > > > > Forbid such a setup by making sure all the vcpus have the same > > register width. > > > > Reported-by: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com> > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > > --- > > arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c > > index 956cdc240148..1cf308be6ef3 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c > > @@ -166,6 +166,25 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_enable_ptrauth(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > return 0; > > } > > > > +static bool vcpu_allowed_register_width(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > +{ > > + struct kvm_vcpu *tmp; > > + int i; > > + > > + /* Check that the vcpus are either all 32bit or all 64bit */ > > + kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, tmp, vcpu->kvm) { > > + bool w; > > + > > + w = test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, tmp->arch.features); > > + w ^= test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, vcpu->arch.features); > > + > > + if (w) > > + return false; > > + } > > I think this is wrong for a single-cpu VM. In that case, the loop will > have a single iteration, and tmp == vcpu, so w must be 0 regardless of > the value of arch.features. I don't immediately see what is wrong with a single-cpu VM. 'w' will be zero indeed, and we'll return that this is allowed. After all, each VM starts by being a single-CPU VM. But of course... > IIUC that doesn't prevent KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT being set when we don't > have the ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1 cap, unless that's checked elsewhere? ... I mistakenly removed the check against ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1... > > How about something like: > > | static bool vcpu_allowed_register_width(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > | { > | bool is_32bit = vcpu_features_32bit(vcpu); > | struct kvm_vcpu *tmp; > | int i; > | > | if (!cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1) && is_32bit) > | return false; > | > | kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, tmp, vcpu->kvm) { > | if (is_32bit != vcpu_features_32bit(tmp)) > | return false; > | } > | > | return true; > | } > > ... with a helper in <asm/kvm_emulate.h> like: > > | static bool vcpu_features_32bit(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > | { > | return test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, vcpu->arch.features); > | } > > ... or > > | static inline bool vcpu_has_feature(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int feature) > | { > | return test_bit(feature, vcpu->arch.features); > | } > > ... so that we can avoid the line splitting required by the length of > the test_bit() expression? Yup, looks OK to me (with a preference for the latter). Thanks, M. -- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Prevent mixed-width VM creation 2021-05-20 12:58 ` Marc Zyngier (?) @ 2021-05-20 14:06 ` Mark Rutland -1 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Mark Rutland @ 2021-05-20 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marc Zyngier; +Cc: linux-arm-kernel, kvmarm, kernel-team, stable, Steven Price On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 01:58:55PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Thu, 20 May 2021 13:44:34 +0100, > Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 01:22:53PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > > It looks like we have tolerated creating mixed-width VMs since... > > > forever. However, that was never the intention, and we'd rather > > > not have to support that pointless complexity. > > > > > > Forbid such a setup by making sure all the vcpus have the same > > > register width. > > > > > > Reported-by: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > > > --- > > > arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > > > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c > > > index 956cdc240148..1cf308be6ef3 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c > > > @@ -166,6 +166,25 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_enable_ptrauth(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > > return 0; > > > } > > > > > > +static bool vcpu_allowed_register_width(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > > +{ > > > + struct kvm_vcpu *tmp; > > > + int i; > > > + > > > + /* Check that the vcpus are either all 32bit or all 64bit */ > > > + kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, tmp, vcpu->kvm) { > > > + bool w; > > > + > > > + w = test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, tmp->arch.features); > > > + w ^= test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, vcpu->arch.features); > > > + > > > + if (w) > > > + return false; > > > + } > > > > I think this is wrong for a single-cpu VM. In that case, the loop will > > have a single iteration, and tmp == vcpu, so w must be 0 regardless of > > the value of arch.features. > > I don't immediately see what is wrong with a single-cpu VM. 'w' will > be zero indeed, and we'll return that this is allowed. After all, each > VM starts by being a single-CPU VM. Sorry; I should have been clearer. I had assumed that this was trying to rely on a difference across vcpus implicitly providing an equivalent of the removed check for the KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT cap. I guess from the below that was not the case. :) Thanks, Mark. > But of course... > > > IIUC that doesn't prevent KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT being set when we don't > > have the ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1 cap, unless that's checked elsewhere? > > ... I mistakenly removed the check against ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1... > > > > > How about something like: > > > > | static bool vcpu_allowed_register_width(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > | { > > | bool is_32bit = vcpu_features_32bit(vcpu); > > | struct kvm_vcpu *tmp; > > | int i; > > | > > | if (!cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1) && is_32bit) > > | return false; > > | > > | kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, tmp, vcpu->kvm) { > > | if (is_32bit != vcpu_features_32bit(tmp)) > > | return false; > > | } > > | > > | return true; > > | } > > > > ... with a helper in <asm/kvm_emulate.h> like: > > > > | static bool vcpu_features_32bit(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > | { > > | return test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, vcpu->arch.features); > > | } > > > > ... or > > > > | static inline bool vcpu_has_feature(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int feature) > > | { > > | return test_bit(feature, vcpu->arch.features); > > | } > > > > ... so that we can avoid the line splitting required by the length of > > the test_bit() expression? > > Yup, looks OK to me (with a preference for the latter). > > Thanks, > > M. > > -- > Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Prevent mixed-width VM creation @ 2021-05-20 14:06 ` Mark Rutland 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Mark Rutland @ 2021-05-20 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marc Zyngier; +Cc: linux-arm-kernel, kvmarm, kernel-team, stable, Steven Price On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 01:58:55PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Thu, 20 May 2021 13:44:34 +0100, > Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 01:22:53PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > > It looks like we have tolerated creating mixed-width VMs since... > > > forever. However, that was never the intention, and we'd rather > > > not have to support that pointless complexity. > > > > > > Forbid such a setup by making sure all the vcpus have the same > > > register width. > > > > > > Reported-by: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > > > --- > > > arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > > > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c > > > index 956cdc240148..1cf308be6ef3 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c > > > @@ -166,6 +166,25 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_enable_ptrauth(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > > return 0; > > > } > > > > > > +static bool vcpu_allowed_register_width(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > > +{ > > > + struct kvm_vcpu *tmp; > > > + int i; > > > + > > > + /* Check that the vcpus are either all 32bit or all 64bit */ > > > + kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, tmp, vcpu->kvm) { > > > + bool w; > > > + > > > + w = test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, tmp->arch.features); > > > + w ^= test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, vcpu->arch.features); > > > + > > > + if (w) > > > + return false; > > > + } > > > > I think this is wrong for a single-cpu VM. In that case, the loop will > > have a single iteration, and tmp == vcpu, so w must be 0 regardless of > > the value of arch.features. > > I don't immediately see what is wrong with a single-cpu VM. 'w' will > be zero indeed, and we'll return that this is allowed. After all, each > VM starts by being a single-CPU VM. Sorry; I should have been clearer. I had assumed that this was trying to rely on a difference across vcpus implicitly providing an equivalent of the removed check for the KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT cap. I guess from the below that was not the case. :) Thanks, Mark. > But of course... > > > IIUC that doesn't prevent KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT being set when we don't > > have the ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1 cap, unless that's checked elsewhere? > > ... I mistakenly removed the check against ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1... > > > > > How about something like: > > > > | static bool vcpu_allowed_register_width(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > | { > > | bool is_32bit = vcpu_features_32bit(vcpu); > > | struct kvm_vcpu *tmp; > > | int i; > > | > > | if (!cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1) && is_32bit) > > | return false; > > | > > | kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, tmp, vcpu->kvm) { > > | if (is_32bit != vcpu_features_32bit(tmp)) > > | return false; > > | } > > | > > | return true; > > | } > > > > ... with a helper in <asm/kvm_emulate.h> like: > > > > | static bool vcpu_features_32bit(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > | { > > | return test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, vcpu->arch.features); > > | } > > > > ... or > > > > | static inline bool vcpu_has_feature(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int feature) > > | { > > | return test_bit(feature, vcpu->arch.features); > > | } > > > > ... so that we can avoid the line splitting required by the length of > > the test_bit() expression? > > Yup, looks OK to me (with a preference for the latter). > > 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Prevent mixed-width VM creation @ 2021-05-20 14:06 ` Mark Rutland 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Mark Rutland @ 2021-05-20 14:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marc Zyngier; +Cc: stable, kernel-team, kvmarm, linux-arm-kernel, Steven Price On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 01:58:55PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Thu, 20 May 2021 13:44:34 +0100, > Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 01:22:53PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > > It looks like we have tolerated creating mixed-width VMs since... > > > forever. However, that was never the intention, and we'd rather > > > not have to support that pointless complexity. > > > > > > Forbid such a setup by making sure all the vcpus have the same > > > register width. > > > > > > Reported-by: Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > > > --- > > > arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > > > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c > > > index 956cdc240148..1cf308be6ef3 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/reset.c > > > @@ -166,6 +166,25 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_enable_ptrauth(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > > return 0; > > > } > > > > > > +static bool vcpu_allowed_register_width(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > > +{ > > > + struct kvm_vcpu *tmp; > > > + int i; > > > + > > > + /* Check that the vcpus are either all 32bit or all 64bit */ > > > + kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, tmp, vcpu->kvm) { > > > + bool w; > > > + > > > + w = test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, tmp->arch.features); > > > + w ^= test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, vcpu->arch.features); > > > + > > > + if (w) > > > + return false; > > > + } > > > > I think this is wrong for a single-cpu VM. In that case, the loop will > > have a single iteration, and tmp == vcpu, so w must be 0 regardless of > > the value of arch.features. > > I don't immediately see what is wrong with a single-cpu VM. 'w' will > be zero indeed, and we'll return that this is allowed. After all, each > VM starts by being a single-CPU VM. Sorry; I should have been clearer. I had assumed that this was trying to rely on a difference across vcpus implicitly providing an equivalent of the removed check for the KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT cap. I guess from the below that was not the case. :) Thanks, Mark. > But of course... > > > IIUC that doesn't prevent KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT being set when we don't > > have the ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1 cap, unless that's checked elsewhere? > > ... I mistakenly removed the check against ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1... > > > > > How about something like: > > > > | static bool vcpu_allowed_register_width(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > | { > > | bool is_32bit = vcpu_features_32bit(vcpu); > > | struct kvm_vcpu *tmp; > > | int i; > > | > > | if (!cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_32BIT_EL1) && is_32bit) > > | return false; > > | > > | kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, tmp, vcpu->kvm) { > > | if (is_32bit != vcpu_features_32bit(tmp)) > > | return false; > > | } > > | > > | return true; > > | } > > > > ... with a helper in <asm/kvm_emulate.h> like: > > > > | static bool vcpu_features_32bit(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > | { > > | return test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_EL1_32BIT, vcpu->arch.features); > > | } > > > > ... or > > > > | static inline bool vcpu_has_feature(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int feature) > > | { > > | return test_bit(feature, vcpu->arch.features); > > | } > > > > ... so that we can avoid the line splitting required by the length of > > the test_bit() expression? > > Yup, looks OK to me (with a preference for the latter). > > Thanks, > > M. > > -- > Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-05-20 14:08 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2021-05-20 12:22 [PATCH] KVM: arm64: Prevent mixed-width VM creation Marc Zyngier 2021-05-20 12:22 ` Marc Zyngier 2021-05-20 12:22 ` Marc Zyngier 2021-05-20 12:44 ` Mark Rutland 2021-05-20 12:44 ` Mark Rutland 2021-05-20 12:44 ` Mark Rutland 2021-05-20 12:58 ` Marc Zyngier 2021-05-20 12:58 ` Marc Zyngier 2021-05-20 12:58 ` Marc Zyngier 2021-05-20 14:06 ` Mark Rutland 2021-05-20 14:06 ` Mark Rutland 2021-05-20 14:06 ` Mark Rutland
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.