Subject: [PATCH v2 06/21] arm64: KVM: VHE: Patch out use of HVC

From: [email-masked] (Christoffer Dall)
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 16:39:12 +0100

On Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 01:34:16PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 01/02/16 13:16, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 03:53:40PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >> With VHE, the host never issues an HVC instruction to get into the
> >> KVM code, as we can simply branch there.
> >>
> >> Use runtime code patching to simplify things a bit.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <[email-masked]>
> >> ---
> >>  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S           |  7 +++++++
> >>  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/hyp-entry.S | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> >>  2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S
> >> index 0ccdcbb..0689a74 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp.S
> >> @@ -17,7 +17,9 @@
> >>  
> >>  #include <linux/linkage.h>
> >>  
> >> +#include <asm/alternative.h>
> >>  #include <asm/assembler.h>
> >> +#include <asm/cpufeature.h>
> >>  
> >>  /*
> >>   * u64 kvm_call_hyp(void *hypfn, ...);
> >> @@ -38,6 +40,11 @@
> >>   * arch/arm64/kernel/hyp_stub.S.
> >>   */
> >>  ENTRY(kvm_call_hyp)
> >> +alternative_if_not ARM64_HAS_VIRT_HOST_EXTN	
> >>  	hvc	#0
> >>  	ret
> >> +alternative_else
> >> +	b	__vhe_hyp_call
> >> +	nop
> >> +alternative_endif
> >>  ENDPROC(kvm_call_hyp)
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/hyp-entry.S b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/hyp-entry.S
> >> index 93e8d983..9e0683f 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/hyp-entry.S
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/hyp-entry.S
> >> @@ -38,6 +38,32 @@
> >>  	ldp	x0, x1, [sp], #16
> >>  .endm
> >>  
> >> +.macro do_el2_call
> >> +	/*
> >> +	 * Shuffle the parameters before calling the function
> >> +	 * pointed to in x0. Assumes parameters in x[1,2,3].
> >> +	 */
> >> +	stp	lr, xzr, [sp, #-16]!
> > 
> > remind me why this pair isn't just doing "str" instead of "stp" with the
> > xzr ?
> 
> Because SP has to be aligned on a 16 bytes boundary at all times.
> 

right, duh.

> > 
> >> +	mov	lr, x0
> >> +	mov	x0, x1
> >> +	mov	x1, x2
> >> +	mov	x2, x3
> >> +	blr	lr
> >> +	ldp	lr, xzr, [sp], #16
> >> +.endm
> >> +
> >> +ENTRY(__vhe_hyp_call)
> >> +	do_el2_call
> >> +	/*
> >> +	 * We used to rely on having an exception return to get
> >> +	 * an implicit isb. In the E2H case, we don't have it anymore.
> >> +	 * rather than changing all the leaf functions, just do it here
> >> +	 * before returning to the rest of the kernel.
> >> +	 */
> > 
> > why is this not the case with an ISB before do_el2_call then?
> 
> That's a good point. I guess the safest thing to do would be to add one,
> but looking at the various functions we call, I don't see any that could
> go wrong by not having a ISB in their prologue.
> 
> Or maybe you've identified such a case?
> 
I think I argued on Mario's VFP patches that we could rely on an ISB
before the hyp call, but they're not merged yet, so, hey...

-Christoffer