Re: [PATCH v2] hw/arm/virt: KVM: Enable PAuth when supported by the host

[Marc Zyngier]

On Thu, 06 Jan 2022 17:20:33 +0000,
Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org> wrote:
> 
> On 1/6/22 1:16 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >>> +static bool kvm_arm_pauth_supported(void)
> >>> +{
> >>> +    return (kvm_check_extension(kvm_state, KVM_CAP_ARM_PTRAUTH_ADDRESS) 
> >>> &&
> >>> +            kvm_check_extension(kvm_state, KVM_CAP_ARM_PTRAUTH_GENERIC));
> >>> +}
> >> 
> >> Do we really need to have them both set to play the game?  Given that
> >> the only thing that happens is that we disable whatever host support
> >> exists, can we have "pauth enabled" mean whatever subset the host has?
> > 
> > The host will always expose either both features or none, and that's
> > part of the ABI. From the bit of kernel documentation located in
> > Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst:
> > 
> > <quote>
> > 4.82 KVM_ARM_VCPU_INIT
> > ----------------------
> > [...]
> >          - KVM_ARM_VCPU_PTRAUTH_ADDRESS: Enables Address Pointer 
> > authentication
> >            for arm64 only.
> >            Depends on KVM_CAP_ARM_PTRAUTH_ADDRESS.
> >            If KVM_CAP_ARM_PTRAUTH_ADDRESS and KVM_CAP_ARM_PTRAUTH_GENERIC 
> > are
> >            both present, then both KVM_ARM_VCPU_PTRAUTH_ADDRESS and
> >            KVM_ARM_VCPU_PTRAUTH_GENERIC must be requested or neither must be
> >            requested.
> > 
> >          - KVM_ARM_VCPU_PTRAUTH_GENERIC: Enables Generic Pointer 
> > authentication
> >            for arm64 only.
> >            Depends on KVM_CAP_ARM_PTRAUTH_GENERIC.
> >            If KVM_CAP_ARM_PTRAUTH_ADDRESS and KVM_CAP_ARM_PTRAUTH_GENERIC 
> > are
> >            both present, then both KVM_ARM_VCPU_PTRAUTH_ADDRESS and
> >            KVM_ARM_VCPU_PTRAUTH_GENERIC must be requested or neither must be
> >            requested.
> > </quote>
> > 
> > KVM will reject the initialisation if only one of the features is
> > requested, so checking and enabling both makes sense to me.
> 
> Well, no, that's not what that says.  It says that *if* both host
> flags are set, then both guest flags must be set or both unset.

Indeed. But KVM never returns just one flag. It only exposes both or
none.

> It's probably all academic anyway, because I can't actually imagine a
> vendor implementing ADDR and not GENERIC, but in theory we ought to be
> able to support a host with only ADDR.

We explicitly decided against supporting such a configuration. If
someone comes up with such a contraption, guests won't be able to see
it.

        M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.