Subject: [PATCH v2 06/10] KVM: arm64: guest debug, add SW break point support

From: [email-masked] (Alex Bennée)
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 15:06:09 +0100

David Hildenbrand <[email-masked]> writes:

>> This adds support for SW breakpoints inserted by userspace.
>> 
>> We do this by trapping all BKPT exceptions in the
>> hypervisor (MDCR_EL2_TDE). The kvm_debug_exit_arch carries the address
>> of the exception. If user-space doesn't know of the breakpoint then we
>> have a guest inserted breakpoint and the hypervisor needs to start again
>> and deliver the exception to guest.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Benn?e <[email-masked]>
>> 
>> ---
>> v2
>>   - update to use new exit struct
>>   - tweak for C setup
>>   - do our setup in debug_setup/clear code
>>   - fixed up comments
>> 
>> diff --git a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
>> index 06c5064..17d4f9c 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
>> @@ -2626,7 +2626,7 @@ when running. Common control bits are:
>>  The top 16 bits of the control field are architecture specific control
>>  flags which can include the following:
>> 
>> -  - KVM_GUESTDBG_USE_SW_BP:     using software breakpoints [x86]
>> +  - KVM_GUESTDBG_USE_SW_BP:     using software breakpoints [x86, arm64]
>>    - KVM_GUESTDBG_USE_HW_BP:     using hardware breakpoints [x86, s390]
>>    - KVM_GUESTDBG_INJECT_DB:     inject DB type exception [x86]
>>    - KVM_GUESTDBG_INJECT_BP:     inject BP type exception [x86]
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c
>> index 7ea8b0e..d3bc8dc 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/kvm/arm.c
>> @@ -304,7 +304,7 @@ void kvm_arch_vcpu_put(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>  	kvm_arm_set_running_vcpu(NULL);
>>  }
>> 
>> -#define KVM_GUESTDBG_VALID (KVM_GUESTDBG_ENABLE)
>> +#define KVM_GUESTDBG_VALID (KVM_GUESTDBG_ENABLE|KVM_GUESTDBG_USE_SW_BP)
>> 
>>  int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_set_guest_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>  					struct kvm_guest_debug *dbg)
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c
>> index 8a29d0b..cff0475 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c
>> @@ -45,11 +45,18 @@ void kvm_arch_setup_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>  	vcpu->arch.mdcr_el2 |= (MDCR_EL2_TPM | MDCR_EL2_TPMCR);
>>  	vcpu->arch.mdcr_el2 |= (MDCR_EL2_TDRA | MDCR_EL2_TDOSA);
>> 
>> +	/* Trap debug register access? */
>
> This should probably go to the earlier patch.

Agreed.

>
>>  	if (!vcpu->arch.debug_flags & KVM_ARM64_DEBUG_DIRTY)
>>  		vcpu->arch.mdcr_el2 |= MDCR_EL2_TDA;
>>  	else
>>  		vcpu->arch.mdcr_el2 &= ~MDCR_EL2_TDA;
>> 
>> +	/* Trap breakpoints? */
>> +	if (vcpu->guest_debug & KVM_GUESTDBG_USE_SW_BP)
>> +		vcpu->arch.mdcr_el2 |= MDCR_EL2_TDE;
>> +	else
>> +		vcpu->arch.mdcr_el2 &= ~MDCR_EL2_TDE;
>
> Again, a candidate for clear_debug?

I don't follow. Changes to mdcr_el2 will only get applied as we jump in
through the hyp.S code. We need to ensure the guest can use SW BKPTs if
we are not.

>
>> +
>>  }
>> 
>>  void kvm_arch_clear_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
>> index 524fa25..ed1bbb4 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/handle_exit.c
>> @@ -82,6 +82,37 @@ static int kvm_handle_wfx(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
>>  	return 1;
>>  }
>> 
>> +/**
>> + * kvm_handle_debug_exception - handle a debug exception instruction
>
> "kvm_handle_guest_debug"

Sure.

>
>> + *
>> + * @vcpu:	the vcpu pointer
>> + * @run:	access to the kvm_run structure for results
>> + *
>> + * We route all debug exceptions through the same handler as we
>> + * just need to report the PC and the HSR values to userspace.
>> + * Userspace may decide to re-inject the exception and deliver it to
>> + * the guest if it wasn't for the host to deal with.
>> + */
>> +static int kvm_handle_guest_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run)
>> +{
>> +	u32 hsr = kvm_vcpu_get_hsr(vcpu);
>> +
>> +	run->exit_reason = KVM_EXIT_DEBUG;
>> +	run->debug.arch.hsr = hsr;
>> +
>> +	switch (hsr >> ESR_ELx_EC_SHIFT) {
>> +	case ESR_ELx_EC_BKPT32:
>> +	case ESR_ELx_EC_BRK64:
>> +		run->debug.arch.pc = *vcpu_pc(vcpu);
>> +		break;
>> +	default:
>> +		kvm_err("%s: un-handled case hsr: %#08x\n",
>> +			__func__, (unsigned int) hsr);
>
> Don't you want to fail hard in this case? This might result in many messages.
> returning 0 feels wrong.

You mean a BUG_ON()? Although it would be a cock up on the hosts part to
have an un-handled exception enabled allowing the guest to trigger a
host panic seems excessive.

>
>> +		break;
>> +	}
>> +	return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>>  static exit_handle_fn arm_exit_handlers[] = {
>>  	[ESR_ELx_EC_WFx]	= kvm_handle_wfx,
>>  	[ESR_ELx_EC_CP15_32]	= kvm_handle_cp15_32,
>> @@ -96,6 +127,8 @@ static exit_handle_fn arm_exit_handlers[] = {
>>  	[ESR_ELx_EC_SYS64]	= kvm_handle_sys_reg,
>>  	[ESR_ELx_EC_IABT_LOW]	= kvm_handle_guest_abort,
>>  	[ESR_ELx_EC_DABT_LOW]	= kvm_handle_guest_abort,
>> +	[ESR_ELx_EC_BKPT32]	= kvm_handle_guest_debug,
>> +	[ESR_ELx_EC_BRK64]	= kvm_handle_guest_debug,
>>  };
>> 
>>  static exit_handle_fn kvm_get_exit_handler(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>
>
> David

-- 
Alex Benn?e