[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Add virtual SDEI support in qemu

From: Mark Rutland
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Add virtual SDEI support in qemu
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 15:44:46 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.11.1+11 (2f07cb52) (2018-12-01)

On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 03:26:39PM +0100, James Morse wrote:
> On 15/07/2019 14:48, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 02:41:00PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> >> One option (suggested to me by James Morse) would be to allow userspace
> >> to disable in the in-kernel PSCI implementation and provide its own
> >> PSCI to the guest via SMC -- in which case userspace that wants to
> >> implement SDEI would have to implement PSCI as well.
> > 
> > I think this would be the best approach, since it puts userspace in
> > charge of everything.
> > 
> > However, this interacts poorly with FW-based mitigations that we
> > implement in hyp. I suspect we'd probably need a mechanism to delegate
> > that responsibility back to the kernel, and figure out if that has any
> > interaction with thigns that got punted to userspace...
> This has come up before:
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/address@hidden
> I agree Qemu should opt-in to this, it needs to be a feature that is enabled.
> I had an early version of something like this for testing SDEI before
> there was firmware available. The review feedback from Christoffer was
> that it should include HVC and SMC, their immediates, and shouldn't be
> tied to SMC-CC ranges.
> I think this should be a catch-all as Heyi describes to deliver
> 'unhandled SMC/HVC' to user-space as hypercall exits. We should
> include the immediate in the struct.
> We can allow Qemu to disable the in-kernel PSCI implementation, which
> would let it be done in user-space via this catch-all mechanism. (PSCI
> in user-space has come up on another thread recently). The in-kernel
> PSCI needs to be default-on for backwards compatibility.
> As Mark points out, the piece that's left is the 'arch workaround'
> stuff. We always need to handle these in the kernel. I don't think
> these should be routed-back, they should be un-obtainable by
> user-space.

Sure; I meant that those should be handled in the kernel rather than
going to host userspace and back.

I was suggesting was that userspace would opt into taking ownership of
all HVC calls, then explicitly opt-in to the kernel handling specific
(sets of) calls.

There are probably issues with that, but I suspect defining "all
undandled calls" will be problematic otherwise.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]