| Message ID | 20221110015327.3389351-3-oliver.upton@linux.dev (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [RFC,1/3] KVM: arm64: Use a generalized accessor for SMCCC args | expand |
On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 01:53:26 +0000, Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev> wrote: > > As the SMCCC (and related specifications) march towards an > 'everything and the kitchen sink' interface for interacting with a > system, it is less likely that KVM will implement every supported > feature. > > Add a capability that allows userspace to trap hypercall ranges, > allowing the VMM to mix-and-match between calls handled in userspace vs. > KVM. > > Signed-off-by: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev> > --- > arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 5 ++++ > arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 15 ++++++++++ > arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 10 +++++++ > arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > include/uapi/linux/kvm.h | 1 + > 5 files changed, 79 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h > index e33ed7c09a28..cc3872f1900c 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h > @@ -52,6 +52,9 @@ > > #define KVM_HAVE_MMU_RWLOCK > > +#define KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_FLAGS \ > + GENMASK_ULL(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_FLAGS_COUNT - 1, 0) > + > /* > * Mode of operation configurable with kvm-arm.mode early param. > * See Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt for more information. > @@ -104,11 +107,13 @@ struct kvm_arch_memory_slot { > /** > * struct kvm_smccc_features: Descriptor of the hypercall services exposed to the guests > * > + * @user_trap_bmap: Bitmap of SMCCC function ranges trapped to userspace > * @std_bmap: Bitmap of standard secure service calls > * @std_hyp_bmap: Bitmap of standard hypervisor service calls > * @vendor_hyp_bmap: Bitmap of vendor specific hypervisor service calls > */ > struct kvm_smccc_features { > + unsigned long user_trap_bmap; nit: I strongly object to the word 'trap'. By definition, this is a trap. The difference here is that you *forward* something to userspace instead of implementing it in the kernel. > unsigned long std_bmap; > unsigned long std_hyp_bmap; > unsigned long vendor_hyp_bmap; > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h > index 316917b98707..07fa3f597e61 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h > @@ -370,6 +370,21 @@ enum { > #endif > }; > > +enum { > + KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_ARCH = 0, > + KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_CPU = 1, > + KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_SIP = 2, > + KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_OEM = 3, > + KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_STANDARD = 4, > + KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_STANDARD_HYP = 5, > + KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_VENDOR_HYP = 6, > + KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_TRUSTED_APP = 7, > + KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_TRUSTED_OS = 8, > +#ifdef __KERNEL__ > + KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_FLAGS_COUNT, > +#endif > +}; > + > /* Device Control API: ARM VGIC */ > #define KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_ADDR 0 > #define KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_DIST_REGS 1 > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c > index 6f0b56e7f8c7..6e8a222fc295 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c > @@ -100,6 +100,13 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_enable_cap(struct kvm *kvm, > r = 0; > set_bit(KVM_ARCH_FLAG_SYSTEM_SUSPEND_ENABLED, &kvm->arch.flags); > break; > + case KVM_CAP_ARM_USER_HYPERCALLS: > + if (cap->args[0] & ~KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_FLAGS) > + return -EINVAL; > + > + r = 0; > + kvm->arch.smccc_feat.user_trap_bmap = cap->args[0]; > + break; > default: > r = -EINVAL; > break; > @@ -285,6 +292,9 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension(struct kvm *kvm, long ext) > case KVM_CAP_ARM_PTRAUTH_GENERIC: > r = system_has_full_ptr_auth(); > break; > + case KVM_CAP_ARM_USER_HYPERCALLS: > + r = KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_FLAGS; > + break; > default: > r = 0; > } > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c > index 62ce45d0d957..22a23b12201d 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c > @@ -92,6 +92,49 @@ static bool kvm_hvc_call_default_allowed(u32 func_id) > } > } > > +static bool kvm_hvc_call_user_trapped(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 func_id) > +{ > + struct kvm *kvm = vcpu->kvm; > + unsigned long *bmap = &kvm->arch.smccc_feat.user_trap_bmap; > + > + switch (ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_NUM(func_id)) { > + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_ARCH: > + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_ARCH, bmap); > + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_CPU: > + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_CPU, bmap); > + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_SIP: > + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_SIP, bmap); > + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_OEM: > + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_OEM, bmap); > + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_STANDARD: > + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_STANDARD, bmap); > + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_STANDARD_HYP: > + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_STANDARD_HYP, bmap); > + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_VENDOR_HYP: > + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_VENDOR_HYP, bmap); > + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_TRUSTED_APP ... ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_TRUSTED_APP_END: > + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_TRUSTED_APP, bmap); > + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_TRUSTED_OS ... ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_TRUSTED_OS_END: > + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_TRUSTED_OS, bmap); > + default: > + return false; > + } You have multiple problems here: - the granularity is way too coarse. You want to express arbitrary ranges, and not necessarily grab a whole owner range. - you have now an overlap between ranges that are handled in the kernel (PSCI, spectre mitigations) and ranges that userspace wants to observe. Not good. If we are going down this road, this can only be done at the *function* level. And userspace must know that the kernel will refuse to forward some ranges. So obviously, this cannot be a simple bitmap. Making it a radix tree (or an xarray, which is basically the same thing) could work. And the filtering request from userspace can be similar to what we have for the PMU filters. > +} > + > +static void kvm_hvc_prepare_user_trap(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > +{ > + struct kvm_run *run = vcpu->run; > + > + run->exit_reason = KVM_EXIT_HYPERCALL; > + run->hypercall.nr = smccc_get_function(vcpu); > + run->hypercall.args[0] = smccc_get_arg(vcpu, 1); > + run->hypercall.args[1] = smccc_get_arg(vcpu, 2); > + run->hypercall.args[2] = smccc_get_arg(vcpu, 3); > + run->hypercall.args[3] = smccc_get_arg(vcpu, 4); > + run->hypercall.args[4] = smccc_get_arg(vcpu, 5); > + run->hypercall.args[5] = smccc_get_arg(vcpu, 6); All of which is readily available through the ONE_REG interface. I'm mildly reluctant to expose another interface that disclose the same information (yes, I understand the performance impact). Thanks, M.
On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 12:22:12PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h > > index e33ed7c09a28..cc3872f1900c 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h > > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h > > @@ -52,6 +52,9 @@ > > > > #define KVM_HAVE_MMU_RWLOCK > > > > +#define KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_FLAGS \ > > + GENMASK_ULL(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_FLAGS_COUNT - 1, 0) > > + > > /* > > * Mode of operation configurable with kvm-arm.mode early param. > > * See Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt for more information. > > @@ -104,11 +107,13 @@ struct kvm_arch_memory_slot { > > /** > > * struct kvm_smccc_features: Descriptor of the hypercall services exposed to the guests > > * > > + * @user_trap_bmap: Bitmap of SMCCC function ranges trapped to userspace > > * @std_bmap: Bitmap of standard secure service calls > > * @std_hyp_bmap: Bitmap of standard hypervisor service calls > > * @vendor_hyp_bmap: Bitmap of vendor specific hypervisor service calls > > */ > > struct kvm_smccc_features { > > + unsigned long user_trap_bmap; > > nit: I strongly object to the word 'trap'. By definition, this is a > trap. The difference here is that you *forward* something to userspace > instead of implementing it in the kernel. I think you're being polite calling this a 'nit' :-) Naming came about lazily to shorten some names, but completely breaks the notion of what a trap is. Oops. > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c > > index 62ce45d0d957..22a23b12201d 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c > > @@ -92,6 +92,49 @@ static bool kvm_hvc_call_default_allowed(u32 func_id) > > } > > } > > > > +static bool kvm_hvc_call_user_trapped(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 func_id) > > +{ > > + struct kvm *kvm = vcpu->kvm; > > + unsigned long *bmap = &kvm->arch.smccc_feat.user_trap_bmap; > > + > > + switch (ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_NUM(func_id)) { > > + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_ARCH: > > + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_ARCH, bmap); > > + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_CPU: > > + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_CPU, bmap); > > + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_SIP: > > + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_SIP, bmap); > > + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_OEM: > > + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_OEM, bmap); > > + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_STANDARD: > > + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_STANDARD, bmap); > > + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_STANDARD_HYP: > > + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_STANDARD_HYP, bmap); > > + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_VENDOR_HYP: > > + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_VENDOR_HYP, bmap); > > + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_TRUSTED_APP ... ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_TRUSTED_APP_END: > > + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_TRUSTED_APP, bmap); > > + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_TRUSTED_OS ... ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_TRUSTED_OS_END: > > + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_TRUSTED_OS, bmap); > > + default: > > + return false; > > + } > > You have multiple problems here: > > - the granularity is way too coarse. You want to express arbitrary > ranges, and not necessarily grab a whole owner range. > > - you have now an overlap between ranges that are handled in the > kernel (PSCI, spectre mitigations) and ranges that userspace wants > to observe. Not good. We need to come to agreement on what degree of mix-and-match should be supported. Spectre really ought to be in the kernel, and I don't think anyone is particularly excited about reimplementing PSCI. Right now my interest in this starts and ends with forwarding the vendor-specific hypercall range to userspace, allowing something like Hyper-V PV on KVM. > If we are going down this road, this can only be done at the > *function* level. And userspace must know that the kernel will refuse > to forward some ranges. The goal of what I was trying to get at is that either the kernel or userspace takes ownership of a range that has an ABI, but not both. i.e. you really wouldn't want some VMM or cloud provider trapping portions of KVM's vendor-specific range while still reporting a 'vanilla' ABI at the time of discovery. Same goes for PSCI, TRNG, etc. > So obviously, this cannot be a simple bitmap. Making it a radix tree > (or an xarray, which is basically the same thing) could work. And the > filtering request from userspace can be similar to what we have for > the PMU filters. Right, we'll need a more robust data structure for all this. My only concern is that communicating the hypercall filter between user/kernel with a set of ranges or function numbers is that we could be mutating what KVM *doesn't* already implement into an ABI of sorts. i.e. suppose that userspace wants to filter function(s) in an unallocated/unused range of function numbers. Later down the line KVM adds support for a new shiny thing and the filter becomes a subset of a now allocated range of calls. We then reject the filter due to the incongruence. > > +} > > + > > +static void kvm_hvc_prepare_user_trap(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > +{ > > + struct kvm_run *run = vcpu->run; > > + > > + run->exit_reason = KVM_EXIT_HYPERCALL; > > + run->hypercall.nr = smccc_get_function(vcpu); > > + run->hypercall.args[0] = smccc_get_arg(vcpu, 1); > > + run->hypercall.args[1] = smccc_get_arg(vcpu, 2); > > + run->hypercall.args[2] = smccc_get_arg(vcpu, 3); > > + run->hypercall.args[3] = smccc_get_arg(vcpu, 4); > > + run->hypercall.args[4] = smccc_get_arg(vcpu, 5); > > + run->hypercall.args[5] = smccc_get_arg(vcpu, 6); > > All of which is readily available through the ONE_REG interface. I'm > mildly reluctant to expose another interface that disclose the same > information (yes, I understand the performance impact). I can drop this bit for now, always easy to add it back in and advertize with a flag if the overhead is too great. -- Thanks, Oliver
On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 21:13:54 +0000, Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 12:22:12PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > > +static bool kvm_hvc_call_user_trapped(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 func_id) > > > +{ > > > + struct kvm *kvm = vcpu->kvm; > > > + unsigned long *bmap = &kvm->arch.smccc_feat.user_trap_bmap; > > > + > > > + switch (ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_NUM(func_id)) { > > > + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_ARCH: > > > + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_ARCH, bmap); > > > + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_CPU: > > > + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_CPU, bmap); > > > + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_SIP: > > > + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_SIP, bmap); > > > + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_OEM: > > > + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_OEM, bmap); > > > + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_STANDARD: > > > + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_STANDARD, bmap); > > > + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_STANDARD_HYP: > > > + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_STANDARD_HYP, bmap); > > > + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_VENDOR_HYP: > > > + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_VENDOR_HYP, bmap); > > > + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_TRUSTED_APP ... ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_TRUSTED_APP_END: > > > + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_TRUSTED_APP, bmap); > > > + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_TRUSTED_OS ... ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_TRUSTED_OS_END: > > > + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_TRUSTED_OS, bmap); > > > + default: > > > + return false; > > > + } > > > > You have multiple problems here: > > > > - the granularity is way too coarse. You want to express arbitrary > > ranges, and not necessarily grab a whole owner range. > > > > - you have now an overlap between ranges that are handled in the > > kernel (PSCI, spectre mitigations) and ranges that userspace wants > > to observe. Not good. > > We need to come to agreement on what degree of mix-and-match should be > supported. > > Spectre really ought to be in the kernel, and I don't think anyone is > particularly excited about reimplementing PSCI. Right now my interest > in this starts and ends with forwarding the vendor-specific hypercall > range to userspace, allowing something like Hyper-V PV on KVM. > > > If we are going down this road, this can only be done at the > > *function* level. And userspace must know that the kernel will refuse > > to forward some ranges. > > The goal of what I was trying to get at is that either the kernel or > userspace takes ownership of a range that has an ABI, but not both. i.e. > you really wouldn't want some VMM or cloud provider trapping portions of > KVM's vendor-specific range while still reporting a 'vanilla' ABI at the > time of discovery. Same goes for PSCI, TRNG, etc. But I definitely think this is one of the major use cases. For example, there is value in taking PSCI to userspace in order to implement a newer version of the spec, or to support sub-features that KVM doesn't (want to) implement. I don't think this changes the ABI from the guest perspective. pKVM also has a use case for this where userspace gets a notification of the hypercall that a guest has performed to share memory. Communication with a TEE also is on the cards, as would be a FFA implementation. All of this could be implemented in KVM, or in userspace, depending what users of these misfeatures want to do. > > > So obviously, this cannot be a simple bitmap. Making it a radix tree > > (or an xarray, which is basically the same thing) could work. And the > > filtering request from userspace can be similar to what we have for > > the PMU filters. > > Right, we'll need a more robust data structure for all this. > > My only concern is that communicating the hypercall filter between > user/kernel with a set of ranges or function numbers is that we could be > mutating what KVM *doesn't* already implement into an ABI of sorts. > > i.e. suppose that userspace wants to filter function(s) in an > unallocated/unused range of function numbers. Later down the line KVM > adds support for a new shiny thing and the filter becomes a subset of a > now allocated range of calls. We then reject the filter due to the > incongruence. But isn't the problem to ask for ranges that are unallocated the first place? What semantic can userspace give to such a thing other than replying "not implemented", which is what the kernel would do anyway? The more interesting problem is when you want to emulate another hypervisor, and that the vendor spaces overlap (a very likely outcome). Somehow, this means overriding all the KVM-specific hypercalls, and let userspace deal with it. But again, this can be done on a per function basis. Thanks, M.
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 08:26:02AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 21:13:54 +0000, Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev> wrote: > > The goal of what I was trying to get at is that either the kernel or > > userspace takes ownership of a range that has an ABI, but not both. i.e. > > you really wouldn't want some VMM or cloud provider trapping portions of > > KVM's vendor-specific range while still reporting a 'vanilla' ABI at the > > time of discovery. Same goes for PSCI, TRNG, etc. > > But I definitely think this is one of the major use cases. For > example, there is value in taking PSCI to userspace in order to > implement a newer version of the spec, or to support sub-features that > KVM doesn't (want to) implement. I don't think this changes the ABI from > the guest perspective. I disagree for the implications of partially trapping the 'Vendor Specific Hypervisor Service'. If the UID for the range still reports KVM but userspace decided to add some new widget, then from the guest perspective that widget is now part of KVM's own ABI with the guest. Trapping the whole range is a bit of a hack to workaround the need for more complicated verification of a hypercall filter. But for everything else, I'm fine with arbitrary function filtering. Userspace is always welcome to shoot itself in the foot. > pKVM also has a use case for this where userspace gets a notification > of the hypercall that a guest has performed to share memory. Is that hypercall in the 'Vendor Specific Hypervisor Service' range? > Communication with a TEE also is on the cards, as would be a FFA > implementation. All of this could be implemented in KVM, or in > userspace, depending what users of these misfeatures want to do. I'm very hopeful that by forwarding all of this to userspace we can get out of the business of implementing every darn spec that comes along. > > > So obviously, this cannot be a simple bitmap. Making it a radix tree > > > (or an xarray, which is basically the same thing) could work. And the > > > filtering request from userspace can be similar to what we have for > > > the PMU filters. > > > > Right, we'll need a more robust data structure for all this. > > > > My only concern is that communicating the hypercall filter between > > user/kernel with a set of ranges or function numbers is that we could be > > mutating what KVM *doesn't* already implement into an ABI of sorts. > > > > i.e. suppose that userspace wants to filter function(s) in an > > unallocated/unused range of function numbers. Later down the line KVM > > adds support for a new shiny thing and the filter becomes a subset of a > > now allocated range of calls. We then reject the filter due to the > > incongruence. > > But isn't the problem to ask for ranges that are unallocated the first > place? What semantic can userspace give to such a thing other than > replying "not implemented", which is what the kernel would do anyway? ... assuming we know about all defined services in the kernel. I don't care about it too much, but there is the case about a new userspace on an old kernel. > The more interesting problem is when you want to emulate another > hypervisor, and that the vendor spaces overlap (a very likely > outcome). Somehow, this means overriding all the KVM-specific > hypercalls, and let userspace deal with it. But again, this can be > done on a per function basis. Other hypercalls removed, would you be in favor of an all-or-nothing rule for KVM's vendor range implementation? Of course, that could still be enforced on whatever UAPI approach we take. -- Thanks, Oliver
On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 23:39:09 +0000, Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 08:26:02AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Nov 2022 21:13:54 +0000, Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev> wrote: > > > The goal of what I was trying to get at is that either the kernel or > > > userspace takes ownership of a range that has an ABI, but not both. i.e. > > > you really wouldn't want some VMM or cloud provider trapping portions of > > > KVM's vendor-specific range while still reporting a 'vanilla' ABI at the > > > time of discovery. Same goes for PSCI, TRNG, etc. > > > > But I definitely think this is one of the major use cases. For > > example, there is value in taking PSCI to userspace in order to > > implement a newer version of the spec, or to support sub-features that > > KVM doesn't (want to) implement. I don't think this changes the ABI from > > the guest perspective. > > I disagree for the implications of partially trapping the 'Vendor > Specific Hypervisor Service'. If the UID for the range still reports KVM > but userspace decided to add some new widget, then from the guest > perspective that widget is now part of KVM's own ABI with the guest. But that's what I mean by "I don't think this changes the ABI from the guest perspective". The guest cannot know who is doing the emulation anyway, so it is userspace's duty to preserve the illusion. At the end of the day, this is only a configuration mechanism, and it is no different from all other configuration bits (i.e. they need to be identical on both side for migration). > Trapping the whole range is a bit of a hack to workaround the need for > more complicated verification of a hypercall filter. We already need these things for architected hypercalls. Once we have the infrastructure, it doesn't matter anymore which range this is for. > > But for everything else, I'm fine with arbitrary function filtering. > Userspace is always welcome to shoot itself in the foot. > > > pKVM also has a use case for this where userspace gets a notification > > of the hypercall that a guest has performed to share memory. > > Is that hypercall in the 'Vendor Specific Hypervisor Service' range? Yes. It is get another KVM hypercall. > > > Communication with a TEE also is on the cards, as would be a FFA > > implementation. All of this could be implemented in KVM, or in > > userspace, depending what users of these misfeatures want to do. > > I'm very hopeful that by forwarding all of this to userspace we can get > out of the business of implementing every darn spec that comes along. Good luck. All the TEEs have private, home grown APIs, and every vendor will want to implement their own crap (i.e. there is no spec). M.
Hey Oliver, On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 01:53:26AM +0000, Oliver Upton wrote: > As the SMCCC (and related specifications) march towards an > 'everything and the kitchen sink' interface for interacting with a > system, it is less likely that KVM will implement every supported > feature. > > Add a capability that allows userspace to trap hypercall ranges, > allowing the VMM to mix-and-match between calls handled in userspace vs. > KVM. > > Signed-off-by: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev> > --- > arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 5 ++++ > arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 15 ++++++++++ > arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 10 +++++++ > arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > include/uapi/linux/kvm.h | 1 + > 5 files changed, 79 insertions(+) [...] > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c > index 6f0b56e7f8c7..6e8a222fc295 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c > @@ -100,6 +100,13 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_enable_cap(struct kvm *kvm, > r = 0; > set_bit(KVM_ARCH_FLAG_SYSTEM_SUSPEND_ENABLED, &kvm->arch.flags); > break; > + case KVM_CAP_ARM_USER_HYPERCALLS: > + if (cap->args[0] & ~KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_FLAGS) > + return -EINVAL; Why not use KVM_CAP_EXIT_HYPERCALL for this? At some point during pKVM development, we used that to notify the VMM about memory being shared back from the guest but we eventually dropped it as the notification to userspace ended up not being needed: https://android-kvm.googlesource.com/linux/+/dbd2861832dfc4c8a3103214b3c212ee7ace1c44%5E%21/ https://android-kvm.googlesource.com/linux/+/2a3afc6da99c0e0cb62be1687153ee572903aa80%5E%21/ I'm not saying that what we did was necessarily better, but it seems a bit simpler and I figured it might be useful to point you to it. Will
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 02:56:38PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 01:53:26AM +0000, Oliver Upton wrote: > > As the SMCCC (and related specifications) march towards an > > 'everything and the kitchen sink' interface for interacting with a > > system, it is less likely that KVM will implement every supported > > feature. > > > > Add a capability that allows userspace to trap hypercall ranges, > > allowing the VMM to mix-and-match between calls handled in userspace vs. > > KVM. > > > > Signed-off-by: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev> > > --- > > arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 5 ++++ > > arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 15 ++++++++++ > > arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 10 +++++++ > > arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > include/uapi/linux/kvm.h | 1 + > > 5 files changed, 79 insertions(+) > > [...] > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c > > index 6f0b56e7f8c7..6e8a222fc295 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c > > @@ -100,6 +100,13 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_enable_cap(struct kvm *kvm, > > r = 0; > > set_bit(KVM_ARCH_FLAG_SYSTEM_SUSPEND_ENABLED, &kvm->arch.flags); > > break; > > + case KVM_CAP_ARM_USER_HYPERCALLS: > > + if (cap->args[0] & ~KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_FLAGS) > > + return -EINVAL; > > Why not use KVM_CAP_EXIT_HYPERCALL for this? Err... I hilariously hijacked its UAPI for the exit but added a new cap for it :) I think the direction going forward will be to provide userspace with a range-based filter such that (to a degree) we can arbitrarily forward hypercalls to userspace, allowing for a mix-and-match approach. > At some point during pKVM > development, we used that to notify the VMM about memory being shared > back from the guest but we eventually dropped it as the notification to > userspace ended up not being needed: > > https://android-kvm.googlesource.com/linux/+/dbd2861832dfc4c8a3103214b3c212ee7ace1c44%5E%21/ > https://android-kvm.googlesource.com/linux/+/2a3afc6da99c0e0cb62be1687153ee572903aa80%5E%21/ > > I'm not saying that what we did was necessarily better, but it seems a bit > simpler and I figured it might be useful to point you to it. Yeah, this is certainly a lot cleaner than what I've proposed here. And frankly, for my immediate interest (forwarding vendor hypercalls to userspace), this would fit the bill. OTOH, I was hoping that something a bit more flexible could move the onus of implementing every darn spec onto userspace (where possible). I know you said pKVM has no need for userspace notifications at this moment, but could user hypercalls be useful again going forward? -- Thanks, Oliver
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h index e33ed7c09a28..cc3872f1900c 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h @@ -52,6 +52,9 @@ #define KVM_HAVE_MMU_RWLOCK +#define KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_FLAGS \ + GENMASK_ULL(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_FLAGS_COUNT - 1, 0) + /* * Mode of operation configurable with kvm-arm.mode early param. * See Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt for more information. @@ -104,11 +107,13 @@ struct kvm_arch_memory_slot { /** * struct kvm_smccc_features: Descriptor of the hypercall services exposed to the guests * + * @user_trap_bmap: Bitmap of SMCCC function ranges trapped to userspace * @std_bmap: Bitmap of standard secure service calls * @std_hyp_bmap: Bitmap of standard hypervisor service calls * @vendor_hyp_bmap: Bitmap of vendor specific hypervisor service calls */ struct kvm_smccc_features { + unsigned long user_trap_bmap; unsigned long std_bmap; unsigned long std_hyp_bmap; unsigned long vendor_hyp_bmap; diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h index 316917b98707..07fa3f597e61 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h @@ -370,6 +370,21 @@ enum { #endif }; +enum { + KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_ARCH = 0, + KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_CPU = 1, + KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_SIP = 2, + KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_OEM = 3, + KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_STANDARD = 4, + KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_STANDARD_HYP = 5, + KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_VENDOR_HYP = 6, + KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_TRUSTED_APP = 7, + KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_TRUSTED_OS = 8, +#ifdef __KERNEL__ + KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_FLAGS_COUNT, +#endif +}; + /* Device Control API: ARM VGIC */ #define KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_ADDR 0 #define KVM_DEV_ARM_VGIC_GRP_DIST_REGS 1 diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c index 6f0b56e7f8c7..6e8a222fc295 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c @@ -100,6 +100,13 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_enable_cap(struct kvm *kvm, r = 0; set_bit(KVM_ARCH_FLAG_SYSTEM_SUSPEND_ENABLED, &kvm->arch.flags); break; + case KVM_CAP_ARM_USER_HYPERCALLS: + if (cap->args[0] & ~KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_FLAGS) + return -EINVAL; + + r = 0; + kvm->arch.smccc_feat.user_trap_bmap = cap->args[0]; + break; default: r = -EINVAL; break; @@ -285,6 +292,9 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension(struct kvm *kvm, long ext) case KVM_CAP_ARM_PTRAUTH_GENERIC: r = system_has_full_ptr_auth(); break; + case KVM_CAP_ARM_USER_HYPERCALLS: + r = KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_FLAGS; + break; default: r = 0; } diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c index 62ce45d0d957..22a23b12201d 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c @@ -92,6 +92,49 @@ static bool kvm_hvc_call_default_allowed(u32 func_id) } } +static bool kvm_hvc_call_user_trapped(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 func_id) +{ + struct kvm *kvm = vcpu->kvm; + unsigned long *bmap = &kvm->arch.smccc_feat.user_trap_bmap; + + switch (ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_NUM(func_id)) { + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_ARCH: + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_ARCH, bmap); + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_CPU: + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_CPU, bmap); + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_SIP: + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_SIP, bmap); + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_OEM: + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_OEM, bmap); + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_STANDARD: + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_STANDARD, bmap); + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_STANDARD_HYP: + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_STANDARD_HYP, bmap); + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_VENDOR_HYP: + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_VENDOR_HYP, bmap); + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_TRUSTED_APP ... ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_TRUSTED_APP_END: + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_TRUSTED_APP, bmap); + case ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_TRUSTED_OS ... ARM_SMCCC_OWNER_TRUSTED_OS_END: + return test_bit(KVM_ARM_USER_HYPERCALL_OWNER_TRUSTED_OS, bmap); + default: + return false; + } +} + +static void kvm_hvc_prepare_user_trap(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) +{ + struct kvm_run *run = vcpu->run; + + run->exit_reason = KVM_EXIT_HYPERCALL; + run->hypercall.nr = smccc_get_function(vcpu); + run->hypercall.args[0] = smccc_get_arg(vcpu, 1); + run->hypercall.args[1] = smccc_get_arg(vcpu, 2); + run->hypercall.args[2] = smccc_get_arg(vcpu, 3); + run->hypercall.args[3] = smccc_get_arg(vcpu, 4); + run->hypercall.args[4] = smccc_get_arg(vcpu, 5); + run->hypercall.args[5] = smccc_get_arg(vcpu, 6); +} + static bool kvm_hvc_call_allowed(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 func_id) { struct kvm_smccc_features *smccc_feat = &vcpu->kvm->arch.smccc_feat; @@ -128,6 +171,11 @@ int kvm_hvc_call_handler(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) u32 feature; gpa_t gpa; + if (kvm_hvc_call_user_trapped(vcpu, func_id)) { + kvm_hvc_prepare_user_trap(vcpu); + return 0; + } + if (!kvm_hvc_call_allowed(vcpu, func_id)) goto out; diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h index 0d5d4419139a..ea6c1983a545 100644 --- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h +++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h @@ -1178,6 +1178,7 @@ struct kvm_ppc_resize_hpt { #define KVM_CAP_S390_ZPCI_OP 221 #define KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY 222 #define KVM_CAP_DIRTY_LOG_RING_ACQ_REL 223 +#define KVM_CAP_ARM_USER_HYPERCALLS 224 #ifdef KVM_CAP_IRQ_ROUTING
As the SMCCC (and related specifications) march towards an 'everything and the kitchen sink' interface for interacting with a system, it is less likely that KVM will implement every supported feature. Add a capability that allows userspace to trap hypercall ranges, allowing the VMM to mix-and-match between calls handled in userspace vs. KVM. Signed-off-by: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev> --- arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 5 ++++ arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 15 ++++++++++ arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 10 +++++++ arch/arm64/kvm/hypercalls.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ include/uapi/linux/kvm.h | 1 + 5 files changed, 79 insertions(+)