From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06C63C433EF for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2022 02:29:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1348744AbiALC33 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2022 21:29:29 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:50534 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236896AbiALC30 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2022 21:29:26 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1641954565; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=VsbqtGg+ePpOhhtcOeVTbJ5DJvk86Q9d7Vdl1Q2cFD8=; b=aU4cVC7obJ3xAlKZU1kE5nCpZHcSOCBm+mgKVm07TXzVKIpL742n22BIvhU+41fcrBMH7T qeDNLG4UCR5nAH3vqCwvEGtc3JVaO6bMjHkp1NFdKGEiPXxvfXkyibFeIS8dHHr6NmPMv3 gsamVSoQWdS76EjbIIE9vpO83SkYubo= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-532-bKcD2JEsNH6AUYuLu_pM3g-1; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 21:29:19 -0500 X-MC-Unique: bKcD2JEsNH6AUYuLu_pM3g-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8C2A14759; Wed, 12 Jan 2022 02:29:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.72.12.29] (ovpn-12-29.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.12.29]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC1955DF2E; Wed, 12 Jan 2022 02:29:11 +0000 (UTC) Reply-To: Gavin Shan Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/21] KVM: arm64: Support SDEI_EVENT_{ENABLE, DISABLE} hypercall To: Eric Auger , kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu Cc: maz@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, will@kernel.org References: <20210815001352.81927-1-gshan@redhat.com> <20210815001352.81927-6-gshan@redhat.com> <4ce1aed4-d955-145c-777b-350efec2e7bc@redhat.com> From: Gavin Shan Message-ID: Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2022 10:29:08 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4ce1aed4-d955-145c-777b-350efec2e7bc@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Eric, On 11/10/21 12:02 AM, Eric Auger wrote: > On 8/15/21 2:13 AM, Gavin Shan wrote: >> This supports SDEI_EVENT_{ENABLE, DISABLE} hypercall. After SDEI >> event is registered by guest, it won't be delivered to the guest >> until it's enabled. On the other hand, the SDEI event won't be >> raised to the guest or specific vCPU if it's has been disabled >> on the guest or specific vCPU. >> >> Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan >> --- >> arch/arm64/kvm/sdei.c | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 68 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sdei.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sdei.c >> index d3ea3eee154b..b022ce0a202b 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sdei.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sdei.c >> @@ -206,6 +206,70 @@ static unsigned long kvm_sdei_hypercall_register(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) >> return ret; >> } >> >> +static unsigned long kvm_sdei_hypercall_enable(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, >> + bool enable) >> +{ >> + struct kvm *kvm = vcpu->kvm; >> + struct kvm_sdei_kvm *ksdei = kvm->arch.sdei; >> + struct kvm_sdei_vcpu *vsdei = vcpu->arch.sdei; >> + struct kvm_sdei_event *kse = NULL; >> + struct kvm_sdei_kvm_event *kske = NULL; >> + unsigned long event_num = smccc_get_arg1(vcpu); >> + int index = 0; >> + unsigned long ret = SDEI_SUCCESS; >> + >> + /* Sanity check */ >> + if (!(ksdei && vsdei)) { >> + ret = SDEI_NOT_SUPPORTED; >> + goto out; >> + } >> + >> + if (!kvm_sdei_is_valid_event_num(event_num)) { > I would rename into is_exposed_event_num() kvm_sdei_is_virtual() has been recommended by you when you reviewed the following patch. I think kvm_sdei_is_virtual() is good enough :) [PATCH v4 02/21] KVM: arm64: Add SDEI virtualization infrastructure >> + ret = SDEI_INVALID_PARAMETERS; >> + goto out; >> + } >> + >> + /* Check if the KVM event exists */ >> + spin_lock(&ksdei->lock); >> + kske = kvm_sdei_find_kvm_event(kvm, event_num); >> + if (!kske) { >> + ret = SDEI_INVALID_PARAMETERS; > should be DENIED according to the spec, ie. nobody registered that event? Ok. >> + goto unlock; >> + } >> + >> + /* Check if there is pending events */ > does that match the "handler-unregister-pending state" case mentionned > in the spec? >> + if (kske->state.refcount) { >> + ret = SDEI_PENDING; > ? not documented in my A spec? DENIED? Yep, It should be DENIED. >> + goto unlock; >> + } >> + >> + /* Check if it has been registered */ > isn't duplicate of /* Check if the KVM event exists */ ? It's not duplicate check, but the comment here seems misleading. I will correct this to: /* Check if it has been defined or exposed */ >> + kse = kske->kse; >> + index = (kse->state.type == SDEI_EVENT_TYPE_PRIVATE) ? >> + vcpu->vcpu_idx : 0; >> + if (!kvm_sdei_is_registered(kske, index)) { >> + ret = SDEI_DENIED; >> + goto unlock; >> + } >> + >> + /* Verify its enablement state */ >> + if (enable == kvm_sdei_is_enabled(kske, index)) { > spec says: > Enabling/disabled an event, which is already enabled/disabled, is > permitted and has no effect. I guess ret should be OK. yep, it should be ok. >> + ret = SDEI_DENIED; >> + goto unlock; >> + } >> + >> + /* Update enablement state */ >> + if (enable) >> + kvm_sdei_set_enabled(kske, index); >> + else >> + kvm_sdei_clear_enabled(kske, index); >> + >> +unlock: >> + spin_unlock(&ksdei->lock); >> +out: >> + return ret; >> +} >> + >> int kvm_sdei_hypercall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) >> { >> u32 func = smccc_get_function(vcpu); >> @@ -220,7 +284,11 @@ int kvm_sdei_hypercall(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) >> ret = kvm_sdei_hypercall_register(vcpu); >> break; >> case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_EVENT_ENABLE: >> + ret = kvm_sdei_hypercall_enable(vcpu, true); >> + break; >> case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_EVENT_DISABLE: >> + ret = kvm_sdei_hypercall_enable(vcpu, false); >> + break; >> case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_EVENT_CONTEXT: >> case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_EVENT_COMPLETE: >> case SDEI_1_0_FN_SDEI_EVENT_COMPLETE_AND_RESUME: >> Thanks, Gavin