On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 04:58:57PM -0700, Jiaqi Yan wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 12:42 PM Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 05:08:58AM +0000, Jiaqi Yan wrote:
> > > From: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > When KVM returns to userspace for KVM_EXIT_ARM_SEA, the userspace is
> > > encouraged to inject the abort into the guest via KVM_SET_VCPU_EVENTS.
> > >
> > > KVM_SET_VCPU_EVENTS currently only allows injecting external data aborts.
> > > However, the synchronous external abort that caused KVM_EXIT_ARM_SEA
> > > is possible to be an instruction abort. Userspace is already able to
> > > tell if an abort is due to data or instruction via kvm_run.arm_sea.esr,
> > > by checking its Exception Class value.
> > >
> > > Extend the KVM_SET_VCPU_EVENTS ioctl to allow injecting instruction
> > > abort into the guest.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Jiaqi Yan <jiaqiyan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Hmm. Since we expose an ESR value to userspace I get the feeling that we
> > should allow the user to supply an ISS for the external abort, similar
> > to what we already do for SErrors.
>
> Oh, I will create something in v3, by extending kvm_vcpu_events to
> something like:
>
> struct {
> __u8 serror_pending;
> __u8 serror_has_esr;
> __u8 ext_dabt_pending;
> __u8 ext_iabt_pending;
> __u8 ext_abt_has_esr; // <= new
> /* Align it to 8 bytes */
> __u8 pad[3];
> union {
> __u64 serror_esr;
> __u64 ext_abt_esr; // <= new
This doesn't work. The ABI allows userspace to pend both an SError and
SEA, so we can't use the same storage for the ESR.
> };
> } exception;
>
> One question about the naming since we cannot change it once
> committed. Taking the existing SError injection as example, although
> the name in kvm_vcpu_events is serror_has_esr, it is essentially just
> the ISS fields of the ESR (which is also written in virt/kvm/api.rst).
> Why named after "esr" instead of "iss"? The only reason I can think of
> is, KVM wants to leave the room to accept more fields than ISS from
> userspace. Does this reason apply to external aborts? Asking in case
> if "iss" is a better name in kvm_vcpu_events, maybe for external
> aborts, we should use ext_abt_has_iss?
We will probably need to include more ESR fields in the future, like
ESR_ELx.ISS2. So let's just keep the existing naming if that's OK with
you.
Thanks,
Oliver
