On Tue, 03 Jun 2025 10:50:23 +0100,
James Clark <james.clark@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 29/05/2025 5:56 pm, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 May 2025 12:30:27 +0100,
> > James Clark <james.clark@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> SPE data source filtering (SPE_FEAT_FDS) adds a new register
> >> PMSDSFR_EL1, add the trap configs for it.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: James Clark <james.clark@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> arch/arm64/kvm/emulate-nested.c | 1 +
> >> arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c | 1 +
> >> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/emulate-nested.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/emulate-nested.c
> >> index 0fcfcc0478f9..05d3e6b93ae9 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/emulate-nested.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/emulate-nested.c
> >> @@ -1169,6 +1169,7 @@ static const struct encoding_to_trap_config encoding_to_cgt[] __initconst = {
> >> SR_TRAP(SYS_PMSIRR_EL1, CGT_MDCR_TPMS),
> >> SR_TRAP(SYS_PMSLATFR_EL1, CGT_MDCR_TPMS),
> >> SR_TRAP(SYS_PMSNEVFR_EL1, CGT_MDCR_TPMS),
> >> + SR_TRAP(SYS_PMSDSFR_EL1, CGT_MDCR_TPMS),
> >> SR_TRAP(SYS_TRFCR_EL1, CGT_MDCR_TTRF),
> >> SR_TRAP(SYS_TRBBASER_EL1, CGT_MDCR_E2TB),
> >> SR_TRAP(SYS_TRBLIMITR_EL1, CGT_MDCR_E2TB),
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> >> index 5dde9285afc8..9f544ac7b5a6 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> >> @@ -2956,6 +2956,7 @@ static const struct sys_reg_desc sys_reg_descs[] = {
> >> { SYS_DESC(SYS_PMBLIMITR_EL1), undef_access },
> >> { SYS_DESC(SYS_PMBPTR_EL1), undef_access },
> >> { SYS_DESC(SYS_PMBSR_EL1), undef_access },
> >> + { SYS_DESC(SYS_PMSDSFR_EL1), undef_access },
> >
> > PMSDSFR_EL1 has an offset in the VNCR page (0x858), and must be
> > described as such. This is equally true for a bunch of other
> > SPE-related registers, so you might as well fix those while you're at
> > it.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > M.
> >
>
> I got a bit stuck with what that would look like with registers that
> are only undef in case there was something that I missed, but do I
> just document the offsets?
>
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/vncr_mapping.h
> @@ -87,6 +87,8 @@
> #define VNCR_PMSICR_EL1 0x838
> #define VNCR_PMSIRR_EL1 0x840
> #define VNCR_PMSLATFR_EL1 0x848
> +#define VNCR_PMSNEVFR_EL1 0x850
> +#define VNCR_PMSDSFR_EL1 0x858
>
This should be enough.
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -596,6 +596,16 @@ enum vcpu_sysreg {
> VNCR(ICH_HCR_EL2),
> VNCR(ICH_VMCR_EL2),
>
> + /* SPE Registers */
> + VNCR(PMBLIMITR_EL1),
> + VNCR(PMBPTR_EL1),
> + VNCR(PMBSR_EL1),
> + VNCR(PMSCR_EL1),
> + VNCR(PMSEVFR_EL1),
> + VNCR(PMSICR_EL1),
> + VNCR(PMSIRR_EL1),
> + VNCR(PMSLATFR_EL1),
I don't see a point in having those until we actually have SPE support
for guests, if ever, as these will potentially increase the size of
the vcpu sysreg array for no good reason.
> And then sys_reg_descs[] remain as "{ SYS_DESC(SYS_PMBLIMITR_EL1),
> undef_access }," rather than EL2_REG_VNCR() because we don't actually
> want to change to bad_vncr_trap()?
This seem OK for now. We may want to refine this in the future though,
as these registers cannot trap when NV is enabled. Yes, this is a bug
in the architecture.
> There are some other parts about fine grained traps and res0 bits for
> NV, but they all already look to be setup correctly. Except
> HDFGRTR2_EL2.nPMSDSFR_EL1, but it's inverted, none of the FGT2 traps
> are configured currently and PMSDSFR_EL1 is already trapped by
> MDCR_EL2 anyway.
Can you elaborate on that? We have:
SR_FGT(SYS_PMSDSFR_EL1, HDFGRTR2, nPMSDSFR_EL1, 0),
which seems to match the spec.
We also have full support for FEAT_FGT2 already (even if we have no
support for the stuff they trap).
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz isn't dead. It just smells funny.
