From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751211AbdFAUW3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jun 2017 16:22:29 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:60278 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751029AbdFAUW0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Jun 2017 16:22:26 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com E2E79232076 Authentication-Results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=bsd@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com E2E79232076 From: Bandan Das To: Jintack Lim Cc: christoffer.dall@linaro.org, marc.zyngier@arm.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, rkrcmar@redhat.com, linux@armlinux.org.uk, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, vladimir.murzin@arm.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, james.morse@arm.com, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, kevin.brodsky@arm.com, wcohen@redhat.com, shankerd@codeaurora.org, geoff@infradead.org, andre.przywara@arm.com, eric.auger@redhat.com, anna-maria@linutronix.de, shihwei@cs.columbia.edu, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC 08/55] KVM: arm64: Set virtual EL2 context depending on the guest exception level References: <1483943091-1364-1-git-send-email-jintack@cs.columbia.edu> <1483943091-1364-9-git-send-email-jintack@cs.columbia.edu> Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 16:22:17 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1483943091-1364-9-git-send-email-jintack@cs.columbia.edu> (Jintack Lim's message of "Mon, 9 Jan 2017 01:24:04 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.38]); Thu, 01 Jun 2017 20:22:26 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jintack Lim writes: > From: Christoffer Dall > > Set up virutal EL2 context to hardware if the guest exception level is > EL2. > > Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall > Signed-off-by: Jintack Lim > --- > arch/arm64/kvm/context.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/context.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/context.c > index 320afc6..acb4b1e 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/context.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/context.c > @@ -25,10 +25,25 @@ > void kvm_arm_setup_shadow_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > { > struct kvm_cpu_context *ctxt = &vcpu->arch.ctxt; > + if (unlikely(vcpu_mode_el2(vcpu))) { > + ctxt->hw_pstate = *vcpu_cpsr(vcpu) & ~PSR_MODE_MASK; > > - ctxt->hw_pstate = *vcpu_cpsr(vcpu); > - ctxt->hw_sys_regs = ctxt->sys_regs; > - ctxt->hw_sp_el1 = ctxt->gp_regs.sp_el1; > + /* > + * We emulate virtual EL2 mode in hardware EL1 mode using the > + * same stack pointer mode as the guest expects. > + */ > + if ((*vcpu_cpsr(vcpu) & PSR_MODE_MASK) == PSR_MODE_EL2h) > + ctxt->hw_pstate |= PSR_MODE_EL1h; > + else > + ctxt->hw_pstate |= PSR_MODE_EL1t; > + I see vcpu_mode(el2) does return mode == PSR_MODE_EL2h || mode == PSR_MODE_EL2t; I can't seem to find this, what's the difference between the modes: PSR_MODE_EL2h/EL2t ? Bandan > + ctxt->hw_sys_regs = ctxt->shadow_sys_regs; > + ctxt->hw_sp_el1 = ctxt->el2_regs[SP_EL2]; > + } else { > + ctxt->hw_pstate = *vcpu_cpsr(vcpu); > + ctxt->hw_sys_regs = ctxt->sys_regs; > + ctxt->hw_sp_el1 = ctxt->gp_regs.sp_el1; > + } > } > > /** > @@ -38,9 +53,14 @@ void kvm_arm_setup_shadow_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > void kvm_arm_restore_shadow_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > { > struct kvm_cpu_context *ctxt = &vcpu->arch.ctxt; > - > - *vcpu_cpsr(vcpu) = ctxt->hw_pstate; > - ctxt->gp_regs.sp_el1 = ctxt->hw_sp_el1; > + if (unlikely(vcpu_mode_el2(vcpu))) { > + *vcpu_cpsr(vcpu) &= PSR_MODE_MASK; > + *vcpu_cpsr(vcpu) |= ctxt->hw_pstate & ~PSR_MODE_MASK; > + ctxt->el2_regs[SP_EL2] = ctxt->hw_sp_el1; > + } else { > + *vcpu_cpsr(vcpu) = ctxt->hw_pstate; > + ctxt->gp_regs.sp_el1 = ctxt->hw_sp_el1; > + } > } > > void kvm_arm_init_cpu_context(kvm_cpu_context_t *cpu_ctxt) From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: bsd@redhat.com (Bandan Das) Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 16:22:17 -0400 Subject: [RFC 08/55] KVM: arm64: Set virtual EL2 context depending on the guest exception level In-Reply-To: <1483943091-1364-9-git-send-email-jintack@cs.columbia.edu> (Jintack Lim's message of "Mon, 9 Jan 2017 01:24:04 -0500") References: <1483943091-1364-1-git-send-email-jintack@cs.columbia.edu> <1483943091-1364-9-git-send-email-jintack@cs.columbia.edu> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Jintack Lim writes: > From: Christoffer Dall > > Set up virutal EL2 context to hardware if the guest exception level is > EL2. > > Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall > Signed-off-by: Jintack Lim > --- > arch/arm64/kvm/context.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/context.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/context.c > index 320afc6..acb4b1e 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/context.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/context.c > @@ -25,10 +25,25 @@ > void kvm_arm_setup_shadow_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > { > struct kvm_cpu_context *ctxt = &vcpu->arch.ctxt; > + if (unlikely(vcpu_mode_el2(vcpu))) { > + ctxt->hw_pstate = *vcpu_cpsr(vcpu) & ~PSR_MODE_MASK; > > - ctxt->hw_pstate = *vcpu_cpsr(vcpu); > - ctxt->hw_sys_regs = ctxt->sys_regs; > - ctxt->hw_sp_el1 = ctxt->gp_regs.sp_el1; > + /* > + * We emulate virtual EL2 mode in hardware EL1 mode using the > + * same stack pointer mode as the guest expects. > + */ > + if ((*vcpu_cpsr(vcpu) & PSR_MODE_MASK) == PSR_MODE_EL2h) > + ctxt->hw_pstate |= PSR_MODE_EL1h; > + else > + ctxt->hw_pstate |= PSR_MODE_EL1t; > + I see vcpu_mode(el2) does return mode == PSR_MODE_EL2h || mode == PSR_MODE_EL2t; I can't seem to find this, what's the difference between the modes: PSR_MODE_EL2h/EL2t ? Bandan > + ctxt->hw_sys_regs = ctxt->shadow_sys_regs; > + ctxt->hw_sp_el1 = ctxt->el2_regs[SP_EL2]; > + } else { > + ctxt->hw_pstate = *vcpu_cpsr(vcpu); > + ctxt->hw_sys_regs = ctxt->sys_regs; > + ctxt->hw_sp_el1 = ctxt->gp_regs.sp_el1; > + } > } > > /** > @@ -38,9 +53,14 @@ void kvm_arm_setup_shadow_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > void kvm_arm_restore_shadow_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > { > struct kvm_cpu_context *ctxt = &vcpu->arch.ctxt; > - > - *vcpu_cpsr(vcpu) = ctxt->hw_pstate; > - ctxt->gp_regs.sp_el1 = ctxt->hw_sp_el1; > + if (unlikely(vcpu_mode_el2(vcpu))) { > + *vcpu_cpsr(vcpu) &= PSR_MODE_MASK; > + *vcpu_cpsr(vcpu) |= ctxt->hw_pstate & ~PSR_MODE_MASK; > + ctxt->el2_regs[SP_EL2] = ctxt->hw_sp_el1; > + } else { > + *vcpu_cpsr(vcpu) = ctxt->hw_pstate; > + ctxt->gp_regs.sp_el1 = ctxt->hw_sp_el1; > + } > } > > void kvm_arm_init_cpu_context(kvm_cpu_context_t *cpu_ctxt)