From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2023 10:18:24 +0000 (+0100)
Subject: KVM: arm64: Handle FFA_MEM_RECLAIM calls from the host
X-Git-Tag: v6.6.7~2444^2~7^2~6^2~3
X-Git-Url: http://review.tizen.org/git/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=0e3bcb49c13567adb821c4251dcfd04ad7e1179f;p=platform%2Fkernel%2Flinux-starfive.git

KVM: arm64: Handle FFA_MEM_RECLAIM calls from the host

Intecept FFA_MEM_RECLAIM calls from the host and transition the host
stage-2 page-table entries from the SHARED_OWNED state back to the OWNED
state once EL3 has confirmed that the secure mapping has been reclaimed.

Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230523101828.7328-8-will@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>
---

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c
index 83c41c0..550936f 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/nvhe/ffa.c
@@ -124,6 +124,23 @@ static void ffa_mem_share(struct arm_smccc_res *res, u32 len, u32 fraglen)
 			  res);
 }
 
+static void ffa_mem_reclaim(struct arm_smccc_res *res, u32 handle_lo,
+			     u32 handle_hi, u32 flags)
+{
+	arm_smccc_1_1_smc(FFA_MEM_RECLAIM,
+			  handle_lo, handle_hi, flags,
+			  0, 0, 0, 0,
+			  res);
+}
+
+static void ffa_retrieve_req(struct arm_smccc_res *res, u32 len)
+{
+	arm_smccc_1_1_smc(FFA_FN64_MEM_RETRIEVE_REQ,
+			  len, len,
+			  0, 0, 0, 0, 0,
+			  res);
+}
+
 static void do_ffa_rxtx_map(struct arm_smccc_res *res,
 			    struct kvm_cpu_context *ctxt)
 {
@@ -379,6 +396,65 @@ out:
 	return;
 }
 
+static void do_ffa_mem_reclaim(struct arm_smccc_res *res,
+			       struct kvm_cpu_context *ctxt)
+{
+	DECLARE_REG(u32, handle_lo, ctxt, 1);
+	DECLARE_REG(u32, handle_hi, ctxt, 2);
+	DECLARE_REG(u32, flags, ctxt, 3);
+	struct ffa_composite_mem_region *reg;
+	struct ffa_mem_region *buf;
+	int ret = 0;
+	u32 offset;
+	u64 handle;
+
+	handle = PACK_HANDLE(handle_lo, handle_hi);
+
+	hyp_spin_lock(&host_buffers.lock);
+
+	buf = hyp_buffers.tx;
+	*buf = (struct ffa_mem_region) {
+		.sender_id	= HOST_FFA_ID,
+		.handle		= handle,
+	};
+
+	ffa_retrieve_req(res, sizeof(*buf));
+	buf = hyp_buffers.rx;
+	if (res->a0 != FFA_MEM_RETRIEVE_RESP)
+		goto out_unlock;
+
+	/* Check for fragmentation */
+	if (res->a1 != res->a2) {
+		ret = FFA_RET_ABORTED;
+		goto out_unlock;
+	}
+
+	offset = buf->ep_mem_access[0].composite_off;
+	/*
+	 * We can trust the SPMD to get this right, but let's at least
+	 * check that we end up with something that doesn't look _completely_
+	 * bogus.
+	 */
+	if (WARN_ON(offset > KVM_FFA_MBOX_NR_PAGES * PAGE_SIZE)) {
+		ret = FFA_RET_ABORTED;
+		goto out_unlock;
+	}
+
+	reg = (void *)buf + offset;
+	ffa_mem_reclaim(res, handle_lo, handle_hi, flags);
+	if (res->a0 != FFA_SUCCESS)
+		goto out_unlock;
+
+	/* If the SPMD was happy, then we should be too. */
+	WARN_ON(ffa_host_unshare_ranges(reg->constituents,
+					reg->addr_range_cnt));
+out_unlock:
+	hyp_spin_unlock(&host_buffers.lock);
+
+	if (ret)
+		ffa_to_smccc_res(res, ret);
+}
+
 /*
  * Is a given FFA function supported, either by forwarding on directly
  * or by handling at EL2?
@@ -445,6 +521,9 @@ bool kvm_host_ffa_handler(struct kvm_cpu_context *host_ctxt)
 	case FFA_FN64_MEM_SHARE:
 		do_ffa_mem_share(&res, host_ctxt);
 		goto out_handled;
+	case FFA_MEM_RECLAIM:
+		do_ffa_mem_reclaim(&res, host_ctxt);
+		goto out_handled;
 	}
 
 	if (ffa_call_supported(func_id))