From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@amd.com>
Add a per-domain way to optionally disable traps for accesses
to unmapped addresses.
The domain flag is general but it's only implemented for ARM for now.
Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.iglesias@amd.com>
---
tools/libs/light/libxl_arm.c | 3 +++
xen/arch/arm/dom0less-build.c | 3 +++
xen/arch/arm/domain.c | 3 ++-
xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c | 3 ++-
xen/arch/arm/io.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
xen/common/domain.c | 3 ++-
xen/include/public/domctl.h | 4 +++-
7 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/libs/light/libxl_arm.c b/tools/libs/light/libxl_arm.c
index 75c811053c..9530996e72 100644
--- a/tools/libs/light/libxl_arm.c
+++ b/tools/libs/light/libxl_arm.c
@@ -233,6 +233,9 @@ int libxl__arch_domain_prepare_config(libxl__gc *gc,
config->arch.sve_vl = d_config->b_info.arch_arm.sve_vl / 128U;
}
+ /* Trap accesses to unmapped areas. */
+ config->flags |= XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_trap_unmapped_accesses;
+
return 0;
}
diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/dom0less-build.c b/xen/arch/arm/dom0less-build.c
index a49764f0ad..a4e0a33632 100644
--- a/xen/arch/arm/dom0less-build.c
+++ b/xen/arch/arm/dom0less-build.c
@@ -343,6 +343,9 @@ void __init arch_create_domUs(struct dt_device_node *node,
panic("'sve' property found, but CONFIG_ARM64_SVE not selected\n");
#endif
}
+
+ /* Trap accesses to unmapped areas. */
+ d_cfg->flags |= XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_trap_unmapped_accesses;
}
int __init init_intc_phandle(struct kernel_info *kinfo, const char *name,
diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/domain.c b/xen/arch/arm/domain.c
index 45aeb8bddc..be58a23dd7 100644
--- a/xen/arch/arm/domain.c
+++ b/xen/arch/arm/domain.c
@@ -612,7 +612,8 @@ int arch_sanitise_domain_config(struct xen_domctl_createdomain *config)
unsigned int max_vcpus;
unsigned int flags_required = (XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hvm | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hap);
unsigned int flags_optional = (XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_iommu | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpmu |
- XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_xs_domain );
+ XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_xs_domain |
+ XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_trap_unmapped_accesses );
unsigned int sve_vl_bits = sve_decode_vl(config->arch.sve_vl);
if ( (config->flags & ~flags_optional) != flags_required )
diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
index b189a7cfae..7ff9c1b584 100644
--- a/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
+++ b/xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c
@@ -2003,7 +2003,8 @@ void __init create_dom0(void)
{
struct domain *dom0;
struct xen_domctl_createdomain dom0_cfg = {
- .flags = XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hvm | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hap,
+ .flags = XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hvm | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hap |
+ XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_trap_unmapped_accesses,
.max_evtchn_port = -1,
.max_grant_frames = gnttab_dom0_frames(),
.max_maptrack_frames = -1,
diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/io.c b/xen/arch/arm/io.c
index 5a4b0e8f25..e599bbe043 100644
--- a/xen/arch/arm/io.c
+++ b/xen/arch/arm/io.c
@@ -21,6 +21,32 @@
#include "decode.h"
+/* Handler for unmapped ranges. Writes ignored, reads return all ones. */
+static int unmapped_read(struct vcpu *v, mmio_info_t *info, register_t *r,
+ void *priv)
+{
+ uint64_t mask = GENMASK((1U << info->dabt.size) * 8 - 1, 0);
+
+ /* Mask off upper bits. */
+ *r = UINT64_MAX & mask;
+ return 1;
+}
+
+static int unmapped_write(struct vcpu *v, mmio_info_t *info, register_t r,
+ void *priv)
+{
+ return 1;
+}
+
+static const struct mmio_handler_ops unmapped_ops = {
+ .read = unmapped_read,
+ .write = unmapped_write
+};
+
+static const struct mmio_handler unmapped_handler = {
+ .ops = &unmapped_ops
+};
+
static enum io_state handle_read(const struct mmio_handler *handler,
struct vcpu *v,
mmio_info_t *info)
@@ -175,11 +201,18 @@ enum io_state try_handle_mmio(struct cpu_user_regs *regs,
handler = find_mmio_handler(v->domain, info->gpa);
if ( !handler )
{
+ bool trap_unmapped = v->domain->options &
+ XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_trap_unmapped_accesses;
rc = try_fwd_ioserv(regs, v, info);
if ( rc == IO_HANDLED )
return handle_ioserv(regs, v);
-
- return rc;
+ else if ( rc == IO_UNHANDLED && !trap_unmapped )
+ {
+ /* Fallback to the unmapped handler. */
+ handler = &unmapped_handler;
+ } else {
+ return rc;
+ }
}
/*
diff --git a/xen/common/domain.c b/xen/common/domain.c
index abf1969e60..ac4f58f638 100644
--- a/xen/common/domain.c
+++ b/xen/common/domain.c
@@ -721,7 +721,8 @@ static int sanitise_domain_config(struct xen_domctl_createdomain *config)
~(XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hvm | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hap |
XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_s3_integrity | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_oos_off |
XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_xs_domain | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_iommu |
- XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_nested_virt | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpmu) )
+ XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_nested_virt | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpmu |
+ XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_trap_unmapped_accesses) )
{
dprintk(XENLOG_INFO, "Unknown CDF flags %#x\n", config->flags);
return -EINVAL;
diff --git a/xen/include/public/domctl.h b/xen/include/public/domctl.h
index 5b2063eed9..be19ab5e26 100644
--- a/xen/include/public/domctl.h
+++ b/xen/include/public/domctl.h
@@ -66,9 +66,11 @@ struct xen_domctl_createdomain {
#define XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_nested_virt (1U << _XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_nested_virt)
/* Should we expose the vPMU to the guest? */
#define XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpmu (1U << 7)
+/* Should we trap guest accesses to unmapped addresses? */
+#define XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_trap_unmapped_accesses (1U << 8)
/* Max XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_* constant. Used for ABI checking. */
-#define XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_MAX XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpmu
+#define XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_MAX XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_trap_unmapped_accesses
uint32_t flags;
--
2.43.0Hi Edgar,
On 30/05/2025 14:45, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote:
> From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@amd.com>
>
> Add a per-domain way to optionally disable traps for accesses
> to unmapped addresses.
>
> The domain flag is general but it's only implemented for ARM for now.
>
> Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.iglesias@amd.com>
> ---
> tools/libs/light/libxl_arm.c | 3 +++
> xen/arch/arm/dom0less-build.c | 3 +++
> xen/arch/arm/domain.c | 3 ++-
> xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c | 3 ++-
> xen/arch/arm/io.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> xen/common/domain.c | 3 ++-
> xen/include/public/domctl.h | 4 +++-
> 7 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/libs/light/libxl_arm.c b/tools/libs/light/libxl_arm.c
> index 75c811053c..9530996e72 100644
> --- a/tools/libs/light/libxl_arm.c
> +++ b/tools/libs/light/libxl_arm.c
> @@ -233,6 +233,9 @@ int libxl__arch_domain_prepare_config(libxl__gc *gc,
> config->arch.sve_vl = d_config->b_info.arch_arm.sve_vl / 128U;
> }
>
> + /* Trap accesses to unmapped areas. */
> + config->flags |= XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_trap_unmapped_accesses;
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/dom0less-build.c b/xen/arch/arm/dom0less-build.c
> index a49764f0ad..a4e0a33632 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/arm/dom0less-build.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/dom0less-build.c
> @@ -343,6 +343,9 @@ void __init arch_create_domUs(struct dt_device_node *node,
> panic("'sve' property found, but CONFIG_ARM64_SVE not selected\n");
> #endif
> }
> +
> + /* Trap accesses to unmapped areas. */
> + d_cfg->flags |= XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_trap_unmapped_accesses;
> }
>
> int __init init_intc_phandle(struct kernel_info *kinfo, const char *name,
> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/domain.c b/xen/arch/arm/domain.c
> index 45aeb8bddc..be58a23dd7 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/arm/domain.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/domain.c
> @@ -612,7 +612,8 @@ int arch_sanitise_domain_config(struct xen_domctl_createdomain *config)
> unsigned int max_vcpus;
> unsigned int flags_required = (XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hvm | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hap);
> unsigned int flags_optional = (XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_iommu | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpmu |
> - XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_xs_domain );
> + XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_xs_domain |
> + XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_trap_unmapped_accesses );
Just to double check, doesn't this mean the flag will be allowed on x86?
If so, shouldn't we reject it in an arch?
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 10:36:40AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Edgar,
Hi Julien,
>
> On 30/05/2025 14:45, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote:
> > From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@amd.com>
> >
> > Add a per-domain way to optionally disable traps for accesses
> > to unmapped addresses.
> >
> > The domain flag is general but it's only implemented for ARM for now.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.iglesias@amd.com>
> > ---
> > tools/libs/light/libxl_arm.c | 3 +++
> > xen/arch/arm/dom0less-build.c | 3 +++
> > xen/arch/arm/domain.c | 3 ++-
> > xen/arch/arm/domain_build.c | 3 ++-
> > xen/arch/arm/io.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > xen/common/domain.c | 3 ++-
> > xen/include/public/domctl.h | 4 +++-
> > 7 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/libs/light/libxl_arm.c b/tools/libs/light/libxl_arm.c
> > index 75c811053c..9530996e72 100644
> > --- a/tools/libs/light/libxl_arm.c
> > +++ b/tools/libs/light/libxl_arm.c
> > @@ -233,6 +233,9 @@ int libxl__arch_domain_prepare_config(libxl__gc *gc,
> > config->arch.sve_vl = d_config->b_info.arch_arm.sve_vl / 128U;
> > }
> > + /* Trap accesses to unmapped areas. */
> > + config->flags |= XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_trap_unmapped_accesses;
> > +
> > return 0;
> > }
> > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/dom0less-build.c b/xen/arch/arm/dom0less-build.c
> > index a49764f0ad..a4e0a33632 100644
> > --- a/xen/arch/arm/dom0less-build.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/dom0less-build.c
> > @@ -343,6 +343,9 @@ void __init arch_create_domUs(struct dt_device_node *node,
> > panic("'sve' property found, but CONFIG_ARM64_SVE not selected\n");
> > #endif
> > }
> > +
> > + /* Trap accesses to unmapped areas. */
> > + d_cfg->flags |= XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_trap_unmapped_accesses;
> > }
> > int __init init_intc_phandle(struct kernel_info *kinfo, const char *name,
> > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/domain.c b/xen/arch/arm/domain.c
> > index 45aeb8bddc..be58a23dd7 100644
> > --- a/xen/arch/arm/domain.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/domain.c
> > @@ -612,7 +612,8 @@ int arch_sanitise_domain_config(struct xen_domctl_createdomain *config)
> > unsigned int max_vcpus;
> > unsigned int flags_required = (XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hvm | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hap);
> > unsigned int flags_optional = (XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_iommu | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpmu |
> > - XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_xs_domain );
> > + XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_xs_domain |
> > + XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_trap_unmapped_accesses );
>
> Just to double check, doesn't this mean the flag will be allowed on x86? If
> so, shouldn't we reject it in an arch?
Yes, I had initially thought I could block the flag for x86 in xl but I
didn't consider go/ocaml bindings nor Xen internal missconfig. In v4,
I'm adding a check in x86's arch_sanitise_domain_config().
Cheers,
Edgar
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Julien Grall
>
On Fri, 30 May 2025, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote: > From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@amd.com> > > Add a per-domain way to optionally disable traps for accesses > to unmapped addresses. > > The domain flag is general but it's only implemented for ARM for now. > > Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.iglesias@amd.com> Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org> I am OK with the name "XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_trap_unmapped_accesses" being long but I would also be OK with a shorter name if it is still clear enough.
On 30.05.2025 15:45, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote:
> --- a/xen/common/domain.c
> +++ b/xen/common/domain.c
> @@ -721,7 +721,8 @@ static int sanitise_domain_config(struct xen_domctl_createdomain *config)
> ~(XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hvm | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hap |
> XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_s3_integrity | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_oos_off |
> XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_xs_domain | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_iommu |
> - XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_nested_virt | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpmu) )
> + XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_nested_virt | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpmu |
> + XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_trap_unmapped_accesses) )
> {
> dprintk(XENLOG_INFO, "Unknown CDF flags %#x\n", config->flags);
> return -EINVAL;
> --- a/xen/include/public/domctl.h
> +++ b/xen/include/public/domctl.h
> @@ -66,9 +66,11 @@ struct xen_domctl_createdomain {
> #define XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_nested_virt (1U << _XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_nested_virt)
> /* Should we expose the vPMU to the guest? */
> #define XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpmu (1U << 7)
> +/* Should we trap guest accesses to unmapped addresses? */
> +#define XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_trap_unmapped_accesses (1U << 8)
Besides being pretty long an identifier (and that's already with "guest" not
even in the name), if this is to be arch-independent, would this perhaps fit
x86'es recently introduced "advanced" PVH handling of holes? See [1].
Jan
[1] 104591f5dd67 ("x86/dom0: attempt to fixup p2m page-faults for PVH dom0")
On Mon, Jun 02, 2025 at 10:45:36AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 30.05.2025 15:45, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote:
> > --- a/xen/common/domain.c
> > +++ b/xen/common/domain.c
> > @@ -721,7 +721,8 @@ static int sanitise_domain_config(struct xen_domctl_createdomain *config)
> > ~(XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hvm | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_hap |
> > XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_s3_integrity | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_oos_off |
> > XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_xs_domain | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_iommu |
> > - XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_nested_virt | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpmu) )
> > + XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_nested_virt | XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpmu |
> > + XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_trap_unmapped_accesses) )
> > {
> > dprintk(XENLOG_INFO, "Unknown CDF flags %#x\n", config->flags);
> > return -EINVAL;
> > --- a/xen/include/public/domctl.h
> > +++ b/xen/include/public/domctl.h
> > @@ -66,9 +66,11 @@ struct xen_domctl_createdomain {
> > #define XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_nested_virt (1U << _XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_nested_virt)
> > /* Should we expose the vPMU to the guest? */
> > #define XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_vpmu (1U << 7)
> > +/* Should we trap guest accesses to unmapped addresses? */
> > +#define XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_trap_unmapped_accesses (1U << 8)
>
> Besides being pretty long an identifier (and that's already with "guest" not
> even in the name), if this is to be arch-independent, would this perhaps fit
> x86'es recently introduced "advanced" PVH handling of holes? See [1].
>
Looks like the implementation of the options would be related
but trap_unmapped_accesses is intended for domU's and pf-fixup is for
dom0 IIUC, so in terms of configuration they would be different...
I'm happy to change the name of trap_unmapped_accesses if there
are better (and shorter) ideas.
Thanks,
Edgar
> Jan
>
> [1] 104591f5dd67 ("x86/dom0: attempt to fixup p2m page-faults for PVH dom0")
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.