linux-kernel - Re: [RFC V2 3/3] perf: qcom: Add Falkor CPU PMU IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED event support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180613130232.GA27675@arm.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:02:32 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
Cc:     Agustin Vega-Frias <agustinv@...eaurora.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
        timur@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [RFC V2 3/3] perf: qcom: Add Falkor CPU PMU IMPLEMENTATION
 DEFINED event support

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 01:59:58PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 13/06/18 11:35, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 04:41:32PM -0400, Agustin Vega-Frias wrote:
> >> On 2018-06-12 10:40, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 09:56:48AM -0400, Agustin Vega-Frias wrote:
> >>>> Selection of these events can be envisioned as indexing them from
> >>>> a 3D matrix:
> >>>> - the first index selects a Region Event Selection Register
> >>>> (PMRESRx_EL0)
> >>>> - the second index selects a group from which only one event at a time
> >>>>  can be selected
> >>>> - the third index selects the event
> >>>>
> >>>> The event is encoded into perf_event_attr.config as 0xPRCCG, where:
> >>>>  P  [config:16   ] = prefix   (flag that indicates a matrix-based
> >>>> event)
> >>>>  R  [config:12-15] = register (specifies the PMRESRx_EL0 instance)
> >>>>  G  [config:0-3  ] = group    (specifies the event group)
> >>>>  CC [config:4-11 ] = code     (specifies the event)
> >>>>
> >>>> Events with the P flag set to zero are treated as common PMUv3 events
> >>>> and are directly programmed into PMXEVTYPERx_EL0.
> >>>>
> >>>> The first two indexes are set combining the RESR and group number with
> >>>> a base number and writing it into the architected PMXEVTYPER_EL0
> >>>> register.
> >>>> The third index is set by writing the code into the bits corresponding
> >>>> with the group into the appropriate IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED PMRESRx_EL0
> >>>> register.
> >>>
> >>> When are the IMP DEF registers accessible at EL0? Are those goverend by
> >>> the same controls as the architected registers?
> >>
> >> No, there is a separate IMP DEF register to control access.
> > 
> > Great :( We need to make sure we disable EL0 access during boot then, but
> > that means we need to prove for the existence of this thing in head.S
> > (since the PMU driver might not get loaded).
> > 
> > Also, what's the kvm story here so that we don't accidentally open up a
> > VM-VM side-channel via these registers? How do the EL1 trapping controls
> > work?
> 
> We'd trap the IMPDEF register access and inject an UNDEF (assuming that
> the IMPDEF trapping works correctly). I have strictly no plan to support
> this in a guest.

Ah, so we could actually configure that in el2_setup and solve the host
problem if we're entered at EL2. Agustin -- does that work, and what do we
need to do if the host is entered at EL1?

Will