lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Oct]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 0/2] MTE support for KVM guest
On Fri, Oct 02, 2020 at 04:38:11PM +0100, Steven Price wrote:
> On 02/10/2020 15:36, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 10:36:05AM +0100, Steven Price wrote:
> > > Version 3 of adding MTE support for KVM guests. See the previous (v2)
> > > posting for background:
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200904160018.29481-1-steven.price%40arm.com
> > >
> > > These patches add support to KVM to enable MTE within a guest. They are
> > > based on Catalin's v9 MTE user-space support series[1] (currently in
> > > next).
> > >
> > > Changes since v2:
> > >
> > > * MTE is no longer a VCPU feature, instead it is a VM cap.
> > >
> > > * Being a VM cap means easier probing (check for KVM_CAP_ARM_MTE).
> > >
> > > * The cap must be set before any VCPUs are created, preventing any
> > > shenanigans where MTE is enabled for the guest after memory accesses
> > > have been performed.
> > >
> > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200904103029.32083-1-catalin.marinas@arm.com
> > >
> > > Steven Price (2):
> > > arm64: kvm: Save/restore MTE registers
> > > arm64: kvm: Introduce MTE VCPU feature
> > >
> > > arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_emulate.h | 3 +++
> > > arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 7 +++++++
> > > arch/arm64/include/asm/sysreg.h | 3 ++-
> > > arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 9 +++++++++
> > > arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/hyp/sysreg-sr.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
> > > arch/arm64/kvm/mmu.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
> > > arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c | 20 +++++++++++++++-----
> > > include/uapi/linux/kvm.h | 1 +
> > > 8 files changed, 66 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > --
> > > 2.20.1
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Hi Steven,
> >
> > These patches look fine to me, but I'd prefer we have a working
> > implementation in QEMU before we get too excited about the KVM
> > bits. kvmtool isn't sufficient since it doesn't support migration
> > (at least afaik). In the past we've implemented features in KVM
> > that look fine, but then issues have been discovered when trying
> > to enable them from QEMU, where we also support migration. This
> > feature looks like there's risk of issues with the userspace side.
> > Although these two patches would probably stay the same, even if
> > userspace requires more support.
>
> I agree kvmtool isn't a great test because it doesn't support migration. The
> support in this series is just the basic support for MTE in a guest and we'd
> need to wait for the QEMU implementation before deciding whether we need any
> extra support (e.g. kernel interfaces for reading/writing tags as discussed
> before).
>
> However, I don't think there's much danger of the support in this series
> changing - so extra support can be added when/if it's needed, but I don't
> think we need to block these series on that - QEMU can just probe for
> whatever additional support it needs before enabling MTE in a guest. I plan
> to rebase/repost after -rc1 when the user space support has been merged.
>

Fair enough, but it feels like we'll be merging half a feature, leaving
the other half for somebody else to pick up later.

Thanks,
drew

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-10-02 18:23    [W:0.039 / U:0.332 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site