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

[Volodymyr Babchuk <volodymyr_babchuk@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi Sergej

On 31.08.17 16:51, Sergej Proskurin wrote:
> Hi Volodymyr,
>
>
> On 08/31/2017 02:44 PM, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
> > Hello Sergej,
> >
> > On 31.08.17 15:20, Sergej Proskurin wrote:
> > > 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?
> > For ones that are compatible with ARM SMCCC [1]. E.g if you are
> > running SMCCC-compatible system and you are calling SMC/HVC with
> > immediate value 0, then you are safe.
> Alright, as far as I understand this is exactly what I do right now. I
> inject an SMC that is encoded as 0xD4000003.
Actually, this patch series are not merged yet, so no SMCCC support 
right. But this should not a problem in your case.
> > > 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.
> > If you are talking about forwarding SMC exception to VM monitor, then
> > yes, that should not change.
> Yes, exactly. Sorry, I forgot to mention that I have a modified
> xen-access version running in dom0 that registers an SMC monitor and
> also increases the PC by 4 (or dependent on the case, simply leaves it
> as it is) on every SMC trap.
Aha, I see. I never was able to test this feature fully. I played with
my own VM monitor, when I tried to offload SMC handling to another 
domain. But I had to comment out most of the VM monitor code in XEN.
> > > 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.
> > Hm. What do you mean under "SMC instruction injection?".
> My code runs in dom0 and "injects" an SMC instruction to predefined
> addresses inside the guest as to simulate software breakpoints. By this,
> I mean that the code replaces the original guest instruction at a
> certain address with an SMC. Think of a debugger that uses software
> breakpoints. The idea is to put back the original instruction right
> after the SMC gets called, so that the guest can continue with its
> execution. You can find more information about that in [0], yet please
> consider that I try to trap the SMC directly in Xen instead of TrustZone.
Yep, I see. Immediate question: do you flush icache after you put 
original instruction back? Then I can't see, why this should not work. 
If only VM monitor core in XEN is not broken. I don't know any users of 
this.
I'm just curious, why are you using SMC, not BRK instruction?

> > Current code in hypervisor will always inject undefined instruction
> > exception when you  call SMC (unless you installed VM monitor for the
> > guest). Also, it will not increase PC. So, if you'll try to remove
> > inject_undef_exception() call, you'll get into an infinite loop.
> I have a registered SMC monitor running in dom0 that does not reinject
> the undefined instruction exception in do_trap_smc(). So there is no
> indefinite loop at this point. What I see is that as soon as my code in
> xen-access (dom0) increments the trapped guest PC by 4 (and also if it
> doesn't) the next instruction inside the guest will be inside the undef
> instruction handler (I can see that because I have implemented a single
> stepping mechanism for AArch64 in Xen that gets activated right after
> the guest executes the injected SMC instruction).
That's strange. Can you print whole vCPU state to determine that PC 
points to the right place? Also you can check DFAR. Probably you can 
even dump memory pointed by DFAR to make sure that you written back 
correct instruction.
> > > 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.
> > According to ARM ARM, hypervisor should trap SMC even if was disabled
> > by EL3. I think, that in your case the problem is in current
> > implementation of do_trap_smc()
> Unfortunately, I don't think that this is the problem of do_trap_smc()
> (see above). But let me check one more time.
As I said, I know no users for SMC monitor, and I'm not exactly sure 
that it works properly.
> > > 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.
> > I don't quite understood, what you are trying to achieve. But I think
> > that pair of printk()s in do_trap_smc() will reveal much.
> Yea, the idea is to inject SMC instructions into the guest to simulate
> software breakpoints for guest analysis purposes. Please let me cleanup
> my current printk output to better present my issue.
>
> > [1]
> > http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.den0028b/ARM_DEN0028B_SMC_Calling_Convention.pdf
> Thank you,
> ~Sergej
>
> [0] http://www.cse.psu.edu/~trj1/papers/most14.pdf
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel