diff mbox

[1/6] ARM: kvm: psci: fix handling of unimplemented functions

Message ID 1432901799-18359-2-git-send-email-lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Lorenzo Pieralisi May 29, 2015, 12:16 p.m. UTC
According to the PSCI specification and the SMC/HVC calling
convention, PSCI function_ids that are not implemented must
return NOT_SUPPORTED as return value.

Current KVM implementation takes an unhandled PSCI function_id
as an error and injects an undefined instruction into the guest
if PSCI implementation is called with a function_id that is not
handled by the resident PSCI version (ie it is not implemented),
which is not the behaviour expected by a guest when calling a
PSCI function_id that is not implemented.

This patch fixes this issue by returning NOT_SUPPORTED whenever
the kvm PSCI call is executed for a function_id that is not
implemented by the PSCI kvm layer.

Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
Reported-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
Cc: Anup Patel <anup.patel@linaro.org>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
---
 arch/arm/kvm/psci.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Comments

Sudeep Holla May 29, 2015, 1:04 p.m. UTC | #1
On 29/05/15 13:16, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> According to the PSCI specification and the SMC/HVC calling
> convention, PSCI function_ids that are not implemented must
> return NOT_SUPPORTED as return value.
>
> Current KVM implementation takes an unhandled PSCI function_id
> as an error and injects an undefined instruction into the guest
> if PSCI implementation is called with a function_id that is not
> handled by the resident PSCI version (ie it is not implemented),
> which is not the behaviour expected by a guest when calling a
> PSCI function_id that is not implemented.
>
> This patch fixes this issue by returning NOT_SUPPORTED whenever
> the kvm PSCI call is executed for a function_id that is not
> implemented by the PSCI kvm layer.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
> Reported-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> Cc: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
> Cc: Anup Patel <anup.patel@linaro.org>
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
> ---
>   arch/arm/kvm/psci.c | 6 +++---
>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/psci.c b/arch/arm/kvm/psci.c
> index 7e9398c..ec5943b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kvm/psci.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kvm/psci.c
> @@ -273,7 +273,8 @@ static int kvm_psci_0_2_call(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>   		ret = 0;
>   		break;
>   	default:
> -		return -EINVAL;
> +		val = PSCI_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED;
> +		break;

IMO we can remove all the other optional non-implemented PSCI functions
(e.g. KVM_PSCI_FN_MIGRATE, KVM_PSCI_FN_CPU_SUSPEND, ..etc) returning
PSCI_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED here as they will be then automatically covered
by default case.

Otherwise looks good to me:
Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>

Regards,
Sudeep
Marc Zyngier June 9, 2015, 5:18 p.m. UTC | #2
Hi Lorenzo,

On 29/05/15 13:16, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> According to the PSCI specification and the SMC/HVC calling
> convention, PSCI function_ids that are not implemented must
> return NOT_SUPPORTED as return value.
> 
> Current KVM implementation takes an unhandled PSCI function_id
> as an error and injects an undefined instruction into the guest
> if PSCI implementation is called with a function_id that is not
> handled by the resident PSCI version (ie it is not implemented),
> which is not the behaviour expected by a guest when calling a
> PSCI function_id that is not implemented.
> 
> This patch fixes this issue by returning NOT_SUPPORTED whenever
> the kvm PSCI call is executed for a function_id that is not
> implemented by the PSCI kvm layer.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
> Reported-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> Cc: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
> Cc: Anup Patel <anup.patel@linaro.org>
> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/kvm/psci.c | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/psci.c b/arch/arm/kvm/psci.c
> index 7e9398c..ec5943b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kvm/psci.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kvm/psci.c
> @@ -273,7 +273,8 @@ static int kvm_psci_0_2_call(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  		ret = 0;
>  		break;
>  	default:
> -		return -EINVAL;
> +		val = PSCI_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED;
> +		break;
>  	}
>  
>  	*vcpu_reg(vcpu, 0) = val;
> @@ -295,10 +296,9 @@ static int kvm_psci_0_1_call(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  		break;
>  	case KVM_PSCI_FN_CPU_SUSPEND:
>  	case KVM_PSCI_FN_MIGRATE:
> +	default:
>  		val = PSCI_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED;
>  		break;
> -	default:
> -		return -EINVAL;
>  	}
>  
>  	*vcpu_reg(vcpu, 0) = val;
> 

Looks good to me. How do you want to proceed with this one? can I take
it independently from the rest of the series? Or would you prefer it
being kept as a whole?

Thanks,

	M.
Lorenzo Pieralisi June 10, 2015, 8:24 a.m. UTC | #3
Hi Marc,

On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:18:20PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Hi Lorenzo,
> 
> On 29/05/15 13:16, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > According to the PSCI specification and the SMC/HVC calling
> > convention, PSCI function_ids that are not implemented must
> > return NOT_SUPPORTED as return value.
> > 
> > Current KVM implementation takes an unhandled PSCI function_id
> > as an error and injects an undefined instruction into the guest
> > if PSCI implementation is called with a function_id that is not
> > handled by the resident PSCI version (ie it is not implemented),
> > which is not the behaviour expected by a guest when calling a
> > PSCI function_id that is not implemented.
> > 
> > This patch fixes this issue by returning NOT_SUPPORTED whenever
> > the kvm PSCI call is executed for a function_id that is not
> > implemented by the PSCI kvm layer.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
> > Reported-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> > Cc: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
> > Cc: Anup Patel <anup.patel@linaro.org>
> > Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm/kvm/psci.c | 6 +++---
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/psci.c b/arch/arm/kvm/psci.c
> > index 7e9398c..ec5943b 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/kvm/psci.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/kvm/psci.c
> > @@ -273,7 +273,8 @@ static int kvm_psci_0_2_call(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >  		ret = 0;
> >  		break;
> >  	default:
> > -		return -EINVAL;
> > +		val = PSCI_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED;
> > +		break;
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	*vcpu_reg(vcpu, 0) = val;
> > @@ -295,10 +296,9 @@ static int kvm_psci_0_1_call(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >  		break;
> >  	case KVM_PSCI_FN_CPU_SUSPEND:
> >  	case KVM_PSCI_FN_MIGRATE:
> > +	default:
> >  		val = PSCI_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED;
> >  		break;
> > -	default:
> > -		return -EINVAL;
> >  	}
> >  
> >  	*vcpu_reg(vcpu, 0) = val;
> > 
> 
> Looks good to me. How do you want to proceed with this one? can I take
> it independently from the rest of the series? Or would you prefer it
> being kept as a whole?

I will prepare a v2 to take into account a comment from Sudeep and I
will add a stable tag too, yes it should be merged independently.

Thanks,
Lorenzo
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/psci.c b/arch/arm/kvm/psci.c
index 7e9398c..ec5943b 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kvm/psci.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kvm/psci.c
@@ -273,7 +273,8 @@  static int kvm_psci_0_2_call(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
 		ret = 0;
 		break;
 	default:
-		return -EINVAL;
+		val = PSCI_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED;
+		break;
 	}
 
 	*vcpu_reg(vcpu, 0) = val;
@@ -295,10 +296,9 @@  static int kvm_psci_0_1_call(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
 		break;
 	case KVM_PSCI_FN_CPU_SUSPEND:
 	case KVM_PSCI_FN_MIGRATE:
+	default:
 		val = PSCI_RET_NOT_SUPPORTED;
 		break;
-	default:
-		return -EINVAL;
 	}
 
 	*vcpu_reg(vcpu, 0) = val;