Re: [PATCH v4.1] KVM, SEV: Add KVM_EXIT_SHUTDOWN metadata for SEV-ES

[Alexandru Elisei]

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 10:12:13AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Sean,
> 
> Cheers for the heads-up.
> 
> [+Marc and Alex as this looks similar to [1]]
> 
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2022 at 05:01:21PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 08, 2022, Peter Gonda wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 8:55 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 07, 2022, Peter Gonda wrote:
> > > > > If an SEV-ES guest requests termination, exit to userspace with
> > > > > KVM_EXIT_SYSTEM_EVENT and a dedicated SEV_TERM type instead of -EINVAL
> > > > > so that userspace can take appropriate action.
> > > > >
> > > > > See AMD's GHCB spec section '4.1.13 Termination Request' for more details.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe it'll be obvious by the lack of compilation errors, but the changelog should
> > > > call out the flags => ndata+data shenanigans, otherwise this looks like ABI breakage.
> > > 
> > > Hmm I am not sure we can do this change anymore given that we have two
> > > call sites using 'flags'
> > > 
> > > arch/arm64/kvm/psci.c:184
> > > arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi.c:97
> > > 
> > > I am not at all familiar with ARM and RISC-V but some quick reading
> > > tells me these archs also require 64-bit alignment on their 64-bit
> > > accesses. If thats correct, should I fix this call sites up by
> > > proceeding with this ndata + data[] change and move whatever they are
> > > assigning to flags into data[0] like I am doing here? It looks like
> > > both of these changes are not in a kernel release so IIUC we can still
> > > fix the ABI here?
> > 
> > Yeah, both came in for v5.18.  Given that there will be multiple paths that need
> > to set data, it's worth adding a common helper to the dirty work.
> > 
> > Anup and Will,
> > 
> > system_event.flags is broken (at least on x86) due to the prior 'type' field not
> > being propery padded, e.g. userspace will read/write garbage if the userspace
> > and kernel compilers pad structs differently.
> > 
> > 		struct {
> > 			__u32 type;
> > 			__u64 flags;
> > 		} system_event;
> 
> On arm64, I think the compiler is required to put the padding between type
> and flags so that both the struct and 'flags' are 64-bit aligned [2]. Does
> x86 not offer any guarantees on the overall structure alignment?

This is also my understanding. The "Procedure Call Standard for the Arm
64-bit Architecture" [1] has these rules for structs (called "aggregates"):

"An aggregate, where the members are laid out sequentially in memory
(possibly with inter-member padding)" => the field "type" is at offset 0 in
the struct.

"The member alignment of an element of a composite type is the alignment of
that member after the application of any language alignment modifiers to
that member" => "flags" is 8-byte aligned and "type" is 4-byte aligned.

"The alignment of an aggregate shall be the alignment of its most-aligned
member." => struct system_event is 8-byte aligned.

and finally:

"The size of an aggregate shall be the smallest multiple of its alignment
that is sufficient to hold all of its members."

I think this is the only possible layout that satisfies all the above
conditions:

offset 0-3: type (at an 8-byte aligned address in memory)
offset 4-7: padding
offset 8-15: flags

so under all compilers that correctly implement the architecture the struct
will have the same layout.

[1] https://github.com/ARM-software/abi-aa/releases/download/2021Q3/aapcs64.pdf

> 
> > Our plan to unhose this is to change the struct as follows and use bit 31 in the
> > 'type' to indicate that ndata+data are valid.
> > 
> > 		struct {
> >                         __u32 type;
> > 			__u32 ndata;
> > 			__u64 data[16];
> >                 } system_event;
> > 
> > Any objection to updating your architectures to use a helper to set the bit and
> > populate ndata+data accordingly?  It'll require a userspace update, but v5.18
> > hasn't officially released yet so it's not kinda sort not ABI breakage.
> 
> It's a bit annoying, as we're using the current structure in Android 13 :/
> Obviously, if there's no choice then upstream shouldn't worry, but it means
> we'll have to carry a delta in crosvm. Specifically, the new 'ndata' field
> is going to be unusable for us because it coincides with the padding.

Just a thought, but wouldn't such a drastical change be better implemented
as a new exit_reason and a new associated struct?

Thanks,
Alex

> 
> Will
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220407162327.396183-6-alexandru.elisei@xxxxxxx
> [2] https://github.com/ARM-software/abi-aa/blob/60a8eb8c55e999d74dac5e368fc9d7e36e38dda4/aapcs64/aapcs64.rst#composite-types