[PATCH v8 11/11] KVM: arm64: Handle protected guests at 32 bits

From: Fuad Tabba <tabba@google.com>
To: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Cc: maz@kernel.org, will@kernel.org, james.morse@arm.com,
	 alexandru.elisei@arm.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com,
	mark.rutland@arm.com,  christoffer.dall@arm.com,
	pbonzini@redhat.com, drjones@redhat.com,  oupton@google.com,
	qperret@google.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	 linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kernel-team@android.com,
	 tabba@google.com
Subject: [PATCH v8 11/11] KVM: arm64: Handle protected guests at 32 bits
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2021 15:56:36 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211010145636.1950948-12-tabba@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211010145636.1950948-1-tabba@google.com>

Protected KVM does not support protected AArch32 guests. However,
it is possible for the guest to force run AArch32, potentially
causing problems. Add an extra check so that if the hypervisor
catches the guest doing that, it can prevent the guest from
running again by resetting vcpu->arch.target and returning
ARM_EXCEPTION_IL.

If this were to happen, The VMM can try and fix it by re-
initializing the vcpu with KVM_ARM_VCPU_INIT, however, this is
likely not possible for protected VMs.

Adapted from commit 22f553842b14 ("KVM: arm64: Handle Asymmetric
AArch32 systems")

Signed-off-by: Fuad Tabba <tabba@google.com>
---
 arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/switch.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/switch.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/switch.c
index 2c72c31e516e..f25b6353a598 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/switch.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/switch.c
@@ -232,6 +232,37 @@ static const exit_handler_fn *kvm_get_exit_handler_array(struct kvm *kvm)
 	return hyp_exit_handlers;
 }
 
+/*
+ * Some guests (e.g., protected VMs) are not be allowed to run in AArch32.
+ * The ARMv8 architecture does not give the hypervisor a mechanism to prevent a
+ * guest from dropping to AArch32 EL0 if implemented by the CPU. If the
+ * hypervisor spots a guest in such a state ensure it is handled, and don't
+ * trust the host to spot or fix it.  The check below is based on the one in
+ * kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run().
+ *
+ * Returns false if the guest ran in AArch32 when it shouldn't have, and
+ * thus should exit to the host, or true if a the guest run loop can continue.
+ */
+static bool handle_aarch32_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 *exit_code)
+{
+	struct kvm *kvm = kern_hyp_va(vcpu->kvm);
+
+	if (kvm_vm_is_protected(kvm) && vcpu_mode_is_32bit(vcpu)) {
+		/*
+		 * As we have caught the guest red-handed, decide that it isn't
+		 * fit for purpose anymore by making the vcpu invalid. The VMM
+		 * can try and fix it by re-initializing the vcpu with
+		 * KVM_ARM_VCPU_INIT, however, this is likely not possible for
+		 * protected VMs.
+		 */
+		vcpu->arch.target = -1;
+		*exit_code = ARM_EXCEPTION_IL;
+		return false;
+	}
+
+	return true;
+}
+
 /* Switch to the guest for legacy non-VHE systems */
 int __kvm_vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
 {
@@ -294,6 +325,9 @@ int __kvm_vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
 		/* Jump in the fire! */
 		exit_code = __guest_enter(vcpu);
 
+		if (unlikely(!handle_aarch32_guest(vcpu, &exit_code)))
+			break;
+
 		/* And we're baaack! */
 	} while (fixup_guest_exit(vcpu, &exit_code));
 
-- 
2.33.0.882.g93a45727a2-goog


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
