Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 10/11] public: add XENFEAT_ARM_SMCCC_supported feature

[Sergej Proskurin <proskurin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Volodymyr, hi Julien,


On 08/24/2017 07:25 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
>
>
> On 21/08/17 21:27, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
>> This feature indicates that hypervisor is compatible with ARM
>> SMC calling convention. Hypervisor will not inject an undefined
>> instruction exception if an invalid SMC function were called and
>> will not crash a domain if an invlalid HVC functions were called.
>
> s/invlalid/invalid/
>
> The last sentence is misleading. Xen will still inject and undefined
> instruction for some SMC/HVC. You may want to rework it to make it clear.
>

Now that you say that Xen will still inject an undefined instruction
exception for some SMCs, I have a to ask for which exactly?
I might be off topic here, so please tell me if you believe this is not
the right place for this question. In this case I will open an new
thread. Right now, I am working with the previous implementation of
do_trap_smc that was extended in this patch. Yet, as far as I
understand, the behavior should not change, which is why I am asking
this quesiton in this thread.

Currently, I am working on SMC guest injections and trying to understand
the resulting behavior. Every time, right after the execution of an
injected SMC instruction, the guest traps into the undefined instruction
exception handler in EL1 and I simply don't understand why. As far as I
understand, as soon an injected SMC instruction gets executed, it should
_transparently_ trap into the hypervisor (assuming MDCR_EL2.TDE is set).
As soon as the hypervisor returns (e.g. to PC+4 or to the trapping PC
that now contains the original instruction instead of the injected SMC),
the guest should simply continue its execution.

Now, according to ARM DDI0487B.a D1-1873, the following holds: "If
HCR_EL2.TSC or HCR.TSC traps attempted EL1 execution of SMC instructions
to EL2, that trap has priority over this disable". So this means that if
SMCs are disabled for NS EL1, the guest will trap into the hypervisor on
SMC execution. Yet, since SMCs are disabled from NS EL1, the guest will
execute an undefined instrcution exception. Which is what I was thinking
about is currently happening on my ARMv8 dev board (Lemaker Hikey). On
the other hand I believe that it is highly unlikely that the EFI loader
explicitly disables SMC's for NS EL1. However, since I don't have access
to SCR_EL3.SMD from EL2, I can't tell whether this is the reason for the
behavior I am experiencing on my board or not.

It would be of great help if you would provide me with some more clarity
on my case. I am sure that I have missed something that simply needs
clarification. Thank you very much in advance.

Thanks,
~Sergej


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel