lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [May]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 04/18] KVM: arm64: Support SDEI_EVENT_REGISTER hypercall
From
Date
Hi Oliver,

On 4/30/22 10:54 PM, Oliver Upton wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 03, 2022 at 11:38:57PM +0800, Gavin Shan wrote:
>> This supports SDEI_EVENT_REGISTER hypercall, which is used by guest
>> to register event. The event won't be raised until it's registered
>> and enabled. For those KVM owned events, they can't be registered
>> if they aren't exposed.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/kvm/sdei.c | 78 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 78 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sdei.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sdei.c
>> index 3507e33ec00e..89c1b231cb60 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sdei.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sdei.c
>> @@ -25,6 +25,81 @@ static struct kvm_sdei_exposed_event exposed_events[] = {
>> for (idx = 0, event = &exposed_events[0]; \
>> idx < ARRAY_SIZE(exposed_events); \
>> idx++, event++)
>> +#define kvm_sdei_for_each_event(vsdei, event, idx) \
>> + for (idx = 0, event = &vsdei->events[0]; \
>> + idx < ARRAY_SIZE(exposed_events); \
>> + idx++, event++)
>> +
>> +static struct kvm_sdei_event *find_event(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>> + unsigned int num)
>> +{
>> + struct kvm_sdei_vcpu *vsdei = vcpu->arch.sdei;
>> + struct kvm_sdei_event *event;
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + kvm_sdei_for_each_event(vsdei, event, i) {
>> + if (event->exposed_event->num == num)
>> + return event;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return NULL;
>> +}
>
> I imagine you'll drop this hunk in the next spin.
>

Yes, I will :)

>> +static unsigned long hypercall_register(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>
> Hmm, hypercall_ is not a very descriptive scope. Could you instead do
> something like kvm_sdei_?
>
> so for this one, kvm_sdei_event_register()? Provides decent context
> clues to connect back to the spec as well.
>

Sure. I will revise the names of all functions for hypercalls and
remove "hypercall" prefix. For this particular case, I would use
event_register() because "kvm_sdei_" prefix has been reserved for
those global scoped functions :)

>> +{
>> + struct kvm_sdei_vcpu *vsdei = vcpu->arch.sdei;
>> + struct kvm_sdei_event *event;
>> + unsigned int num = smccc_get_arg(vcpu, 1);
>> + unsigned long ep_address = smccc_get_arg(vcpu, 2);
>> + unsigned long ep_arg = smccc_get_arg(vcpu, 3);
>
> We discussed using some structure to track the registered context of an
> event. Maybe just build it on the stack then assign it in the array?
>

Yes, It will be something like below:

struct kvm_sdei_event_handler handler = {
.ep_address = smccc_get_arg(vcpu, 2),
.ep_arg = smccc_get_arg(vcpu, 3),
};

>> + unsigned long route_mode = smccc_get_arg(vcpu, 4);
>
> This is really 'flags'. route_mode is bit[0]. I imagine we don't want to
> support relative mode, so bit[1] is useless for us in that case too.
>
> The spec is somewhat imprecise on what happens for reserved flags. The
> prototype in section 5.1.2 of [1] suggests that reserved bits must be
> zero, but 5.1.2.3 'Client responsibilities' does not state that invalid
> flags result in an error.
>
> Arm TF certainly rejects unexpected flags [2].
>
> [1]: DEN0054C https://developer.arm.com/documentation/den0054/latest
> [2]: https://github.com/ARM-software/arm-trusted-firmware/blob/66c3906e4c32d675eb06bd081de8a3359f76b84c/services/std_svc/sdei/sdei_main.c#L260
>

Yes, This chunk of code is still stick to old specification. Lets
improve in next respin:

- Rename @route_mode to @flags
- Reject if the reserved bits are set.
- Reject if relative mode (bit#1) is selected.
- Reject if routing mode (bit#0) isn't RM_ANY (0).
- @route_affinity will be dropped.

Thanks,
Gavin

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-05-02 04:56    [W:0.092 / U:0.196 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site