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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19ED1C43381 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 15:46:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0102218B0 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 15:46:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2387495AbfB1PqD (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2019 10:46:03 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:44214 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2387438AbfB1PqC (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Feb 2019 10:46:02 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x1SFgGiD102480 for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 10:46:02 -0500 Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com (e33.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.151]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2qxje8rfu0-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 10:46:01 -0500 Received: from localhost by e33.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 15:46:00 -0000 Received: from b03cxnp08027.gho.boulder.ibm.com (9.17.130.19) by e33.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.133) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Thu, 28 Feb 2019 15:45:58 -0000 Received: from b03ledav002.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03ledav002.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.233]) by b03cxnp08027.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x1SFjqbi58654966 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 28 Feb 2019 15:45:53 GMT Received: from b03ledav002.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 499FE136059; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 15:45:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b03ledav002.gho.boulder.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91BB913604F; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 15:45:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [9.85.128.205] (unknown [9.85.128.205]) by b03ledav002.gho.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 28 Feb 2019 15:45:50 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] s390: ap: kvm: add PQAP interception for AQIC To: Christian Borntraeger , pmorel@linux.ibm.com Cc: alex.williamson@redhat.com, cohuck@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, frankja@linux.ibm.com, pasic@linux.ibm.com, david@redhat.com, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, freude@linux.ibm.com, mimu@linux.ibm.com References: <1550849400-27152-1-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <1550849400-27152-2-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <9f1d9241-39b9-adbc-d0e9-cb702e609cbc@linux.ibm.com> <4dc59125-7f96-cba8-651b-382ed8f8bff8@linux.ibm.com> <8526f468-9a4d-68d2-3868-0dad5ce16f46@linux.ibm.com> <6058a017-6404-af3c-62ef-2452214ac97c@de.ibm.com> <2d52b709-05dd-fa60-658a-36b827cf3041@linux.ibm.com> From: Tony Krowiak Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2019 10:45:49 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19022815-0036-0000-0000-00000A92896B X-IBM-SpamModules-Scores: X-IBM-SpamModules-Versions: BY=3.00010679; HX=3.00000242; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000004; SC=3.00000281; SDB=6.01167636; UDB=6.00610016; IPR=6.00948250; MB=3.00025780; MTD=3.00000008; XFM=3.00000015; UTC=2019-02-28 15:46:00 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19022815-0037-0000-0000-00004AE13A8E Message-Id: X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-02-28_08:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1902280106 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2/28/19 8:44 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > On 28.02.2019 14:23, Pierre Morel wrote: >> On 28/02/2019 10:42, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 27.02.2019 19:00, Tony Krowiak wrote: >>>> On 2/27/19 3:09 AM, Pierre Morel wrote: >>>>> On 26/02/2019 16:47, Tony Krowiak wrote: >>>>>> On 2/26/19 6:47 AM, Pierre Morel wrote: >>>>>>> On 25/02/2019 19:36, Tony Krowiak wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2/22/19 10:29 AM, Pierre Morel wrote: >>>>>>>>> We prepare the interception of the PQAP/AQIC instruction for >>>>>>>>> the case the AQIC facility is enabled in the guest. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We add a callback inside the KVM arch structure for s390 for >>>>>>>>> a VFIO driver to handle a specific response to the PQAP >>>>>>>>> instruction with the AQIC command. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We inject the correct exceptions from inside KVM for the case the >>>>>>>>> callback is not initialized, which happens when the vfio_ap driver >>>>>>>>> is not loaded. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If the callback has been setup we call it. >>>>>>>>> If not we setup an answer considering that no queue is available >>>>>>>>> for the guest when no callback has been setup. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We do consider the responsability of the driver to always initialize >>>>>>>>> the PQAP callback if it defines queues by initializing the CRYCB for >>>>>>>>> a guest. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...snip... >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> @@ -592,6 +593,55 @@ static int handle_io_inst(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) >>>>>>>>>        } >>>>>>>>>    } >>>>>>>>> +/* >>>>>>>>> + * handle_pqap: Handling pqap interception >>>>>>>>> + * @vcpu: the vcpu having issue the pqap instruction >>>>>>>>> + * >>>>>>>>> + * We now support PQAP/AQIC instructions and we need to correctly >>>>>>>>> + * answer the guest even if no dedicated driver's hook is available. >>>>>>>>> + * >>>>>>>>> + * The intercepting code calls a dedicated callback for this instruction >>>>>>>>> + * if a driver did register one in the CRYPTO satellite of the >>>>>>>>> + * SIE block. >>>>>>>>> + * >>>>>>>>> + * For PQAP/AQIC instructions only, verify privilege and specifications. >>>>>>>>> + * >>>>>>>>> + * If no callback available, the queues are not available, return this to >>>>>>>>> + * the caller. >>>>>>>>> + * Else return the value returned by the callback. >>>>>>>>> + */ >>>>>>>>> +static int handle_pqap(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) >>>>>>>>> +{ >>>>>>>>> +    uint8_t fc; >>>>>>>>> +    struct ap_queue_status status = {}; >>>>>>>>> + >>>>>>>>> +    /* Verify that the AP instruction are available */ >>>>>>>>> +    if (!ap_instructions_available()) >>>>>>>>> +        return -EOPNOTSUPP; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How can the guest even execute an AP instruction if the AP instructions >>>>>>>> are not available? If the AP instructions are not available on the host, >>>>>>>> they will not be available on the guest (i.e., CPU model feature >>>>>>>> S390_FEAT_AP will not be set). I suppose it doesn't hurt to check this >>>>>>>> here given QEMU may not be the only client. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> +    /* Verify that the guest is allowed to use AP instructions */ >>>>>>>>> +    if (!(vcpu->arch.sie_block->eca & ECA_APIE)) >>>>>>>>> +        return -EOPNOTSUPP; >>>>>>>>> +    /* Verify that the function code is AQIC */ >>>>>>>>> +    fc = vcpu->run->s.regs.gprs[0] >> 24; >>>>>>>>> +    if (fc != 0x03) >>>>>>>>> +        return -EOPNOTSUPP; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You must have missed my suggestion to move this to the >>>>>>>> vcpu->kvm->arch.crypto.pqap_hook(vcpu) in the following responses: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please consider what happen if the vfio_ap module is not loaded. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have considered it and even verified my expectations empirically. If >>>>>> the vfio_ap module is not loaded, you will not be able to create an mdev device. >>>>> >>>>> OK, now please consider that another userland tool, not QEMU uses KVM. >>>> >>>> What does that have to do with loading the vfio_ap module? Without the >>>> vfio_ap module, there will be no AP devices for the guest. What are you >>>> suggesting here? >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> If you don't have an mdev device, you will not be able to >>>>>> start a guest with a vfio-ap device. If you start a guest without a >>>>>> vfio-ap device, but enable AP instructions for the guest, there will be >>>>>> no AP devices attached to the guest. Without any AP devices attached, >>>>>> the PQAP(AQIC) instructions will not ever get executed. >>>>> >>>>> This is not right. The instruction will be executed, eventually, after decoding. >>>> >>>> Please explain why the PQAP(AQIC) instruction will be executed on a >>>> guest without any devices? Point me to the code in the AP bus where >>>> PQAP(AQIC) is executed without a queue? >>> >>> The host must be prepared to handle malicous and broken guests. So if >>> a guest does PQAP, we must handle that gracefully (e.g. by injecting an >>> exception) >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Even if for some >>>>>> unknown reason the PQAP(AQIC) instruction is executed - for some unknown >>>>>> reason, it will fail with response code 0x01, AP-queue number not valid. >>>>> >>>>> No, before accessing the AP-queue the instruction will be decoded and depending on the installed micro-code it will fail with >>>>> - OPERATION EXCEPTION if the micro-code is not installed >>>>> - PRIVILEDGE OPERATION if the instruction is issued from userland (programm state) >>>>> - SPECIFICATION exception if the instruction do not respect the usage specification >>>>> >>>>> then it will be interpreted by the microcode and access the queue and only then it will fail with RC 0x01, AP queue not valid. >>>>> >>>>> In the case of KVM, we intercept the instruction because it is issued by the guest and we set the AQIC facility on to force interception. >>>>> >>>>> KVM do for us all the decode steps I mention here above, if there is or not a pqap hook to be call to simulate the QP queue access. >>>>> >>>>> That done, the AP queue virtualisation can be called, this is done by calling the hook. >>>> >>>> Okay, let's go back to the genesis of this discussion; namely, my >>>> suggestion about moving the fc == 0x03 check into the hook code. If >>>> the vfio_ap module is not loaded, there will be no hook code. In that >>>> case, the check for the hook will fail and ultimately response code >>>> 0x01 will be set in the status word (which may not be the right thing >>>> to do?). You have not stated a single good reason for keeping this >>>> check, but I'm done with this silly argument. It certainly doesn't >>>> hurt anything. >>> >>> The instruction handler must handle the basic checks for the >>> instruction itself as outlined above. >>> >>> Do we want to allow QEMU to fully emulate everything (the  ECA_APIE case being off)? >>> The we should pass along everything to QEMU, but this is already done with the >>> ECA_APIE check, correct? >>> >>> Do we agree that when we are beyond the ECA_APIE check, that we do not emulate >>> in QEMU and we have enabled the AP instructions interpretion? >>> If yes then this has some implication: >>> >>> 1. ECA is on and we should only get PQAP interception for specific FC (namely 3). >>> 2. What we certainly should check is the facility bit of the guest (65) and reject fc==3 >>> right away with a specification exception. I do not want the hook to mess with >>> the kvm cpu model. @Pierre would be good to actually check test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 65)) >> >> >> Currently the check test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 65) is done in the instruction handler, what do you mean here? > > Found it. I think we should couple the check for 64 to fc==3. Otherwise both things are somewhat > disconnected when reviewing. I think you meant facility bit 65. >