On Sun, 12 Sept 2021 at 21:23, Alexander Graf <ag...@csgraf.de> wrote:
>
>
> On 15.06.21 12:56, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 May 2021 at 21:23, Alexander Graf <ag...@csgraf.de> wrote:
> >> Now that we have working system register sync, we push more target CPU
> >> properties into the virtual machine. That might be useful in some
> >> situations, but is not the typical case that users want.
> >>
> >> So let's add a -cpu host option that allows them to explicitly pass all
> >> CPU capabilities of their host CPU into the guest.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <ag...@csgraf.de>
> >> Acked-by: Roman Bolshakov <r.bolsha...@yadro.com>
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> v6 -> v7:
> >>
> >> - Move function define to own header
> >> - Do not propagate SVE features for HVF
> >> - Remove stray whitespace change
> >> - Verify that EL0 and EL1 do not allow AArch32 mode
> >> - Only probe host CPU features once
> >> +static void hvf_arm_get_host_cpu_features(ARMHostCPUFeatures *ahcf)
> >> +{
> >> + ARMISARegisters host_isar;
> > Can you zero-initialize this (with "= { }"), please? That way we
> > know we have zeroes in the aarch32 ID fields rather than random junk
> > later...
> >
> >> + const struct isar_regs {
> >> + int reg;
> >> + uint64_t *val;
> >> + } regs[] = {
> >> + { HV_SYS_REG_ID_AA64PFR0_EL1, &host_isar.id_aa64pfr0 },
> >> + { HV_SYS_REG_ID_AA64PFR1_EL1, &host_isar.id_aa64pfr1 },
> >> + { HV_SYS_REG_ID_AA64DFR0_EL1, &host_isar.id_aa64dfr0 },
> >> + { HV_SYS_REG_ID_AA64DFR1_EL1, &host_isar.id_aa64dfr1 },
> >> + { HV_SYS_REG_ID_AA64ISAR0_EL1, &host_isar.id_aa64isar0 },
> >> + { HV_SYS_REG_ID_AA64ISAR1_EL1, &host_isar.id_aa64isar1 },
> >> + { HV_SYS_REG_ID_AA64MMFR0_EL1, &host_isar.id_aa64mmfr0 },
> >> + { HV_SYS_REG_ID_AA64MMFR1_EL1, &host_isar.id_aa64mmfr1 },
> >> + { HV_SYS_REG_ID_AA64MMFR2_EL1, &host_isar.id_aa64mmfr2 },
> >> + };
> >> + hv_vcpu_t fd;
> >> + hv_vcpu_exit_t *exit;
> >> + int i;
> >> +
> >> + ahcf->dtb_compatible = "arm,arm-v8";
> >> + ahcf->features = (1ULL << ARM_FEATURE_V8) |
> >> + (1ULL << ARM_FEATURE_NEON) |
> >> + (1ULL << ARM_FEATURE_AARCH64) |
> >> + (1ULL << ARM_FEATURE_PMU) |
> >> + (1ULL << ARM_FEATURE_GENERIC_TIMER);
> >> +
> >> + /* We set up a small vcpu to extract host registers */
> >> +
> >> + assert_hvf_ok(hv_vcpu_create(&fd, &exit, NULL));
> >> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(regs); i++) {
> >> + assert_hvf_ok(hv_vcpu_get_sys_reg(fd, regs[i].reg, regs[i].val));
> >> + }
> >> + assert_hvf_ok(hv_vcpu_get_sys_reg(fd, HV_SYS_REG_MIDR_EL1,
> >> &ahcf->midr));
> >> + assert_hvf_ok(hv_vcpu_destroy(fd));
> >> +
> >> + ahcf->isar = host_isar;
> >> + ahcf->reset_sctlr = 0x00c50078;
> > Why this value in particular? Could we just ask the scratch HVF CPU
> > for the value of SCTLR_EL1 rather than hardcoding something?
>
>
> The fresh scratch hvf CPU has 0 as SCTLR.
Yuck. That's pretty unhelpful of hvf, since it's not an
architecturally valid thing for a freshly reset EL1-only
CPU to have as its SCTLR (some bits are supposed to be RES1
or reset-to-1). In that case we do need to set this to a known
value here, I guess -- but we should have a comment explaining
why we do it and what bits we're setting.
> >> + /* Make sure we don't advertise AArch32 support for EL0/EL1 */
> >> + g_assert((host_isar.id_aa64pfr0 & 0xff) == 0x11);
> > This shouldn't really be an assert, I think. error_report() something
> > and return false, and then arm_cpu_realizefn() will fail, which should
> > cause us to exit.
>
>
> I don't follow. We're filling in the -cpu host CPU template here. There
> is no error path anywhere we could take.
Look at how the kvm_arm_get_host_cpu_features() error handling works:
it returns a bool. The caller (kvm_arm_set_cpu_features_from_host())
checks the return value, and if the function failed it sets
the cpu->host_cpu_probe_failed flag, which then results in realize
failing. (You'll want to update the arm_cpu_realizefn to allow hvf
as well as kvm for that error message.)
> This is a case that on today's systems can't happen - M1 does not
> support AArch32 anywhere. So that assert could only ever hit if you run
> macOS on non-Apple hardware (in which case I doubt hvf works as
> intended) or if a new Apple CPU starts supporting AArch32 (again, very
> unlikely).
>
> So overall, I think the assert here is not too bad :)
Well, probably not, but you need the error handling path
anyway for the boring case of "oops, this syscall failed".
-- PMM
