linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] KVM: arm64: Divorce the perf code from oprofile helpers

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Thu, 15 Apr 2021 19:34:40 +0800
From:   Keqian Zhu <zhukeqian1@...wei.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
CC:     <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, <kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
        Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
        "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        <nathan@...nel.org>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
        <kernel-team@...roid.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] KVM: arm64: Divorce the perf code from oprofile
 helpers

Hi Marc,

On 2021/4/15 18:42, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2021 07:59:26 +0100,
> Keqian Zhu <zhukeqian1@...wei.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> On 2021/4/14 21:44, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> KVM/arm64 is the sole user of perf_num_counters(), and really
>>> could do without it. Stop using the obsolete API by relying on
>>> the existing probing code.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/arm64/kvm/perf.c     | 7 +------
>>>  arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c | 2 +-
>>>  include/kvm/arm_pmu.h     | 4 ++++
>>>  3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/perf.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/perf.c
>>> index 739164324afe..b8b398670ef2 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/perf.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/perf.c
>>> @@ -50,12 +50,7 @@ static struct perf_guest_info_callbacks kvm_guest_cbs = {
>>>  
>>>  int kvm_perf_init(void)
>>>  {
>>> -	/*
>>> -	 * Check if HW_PERF_EVENTS are supported by checking the number of
>>> -	 * hardware performance counters. This could ensure the presence of
>>> -	 * a physical PMU and CONFIG_PERF_EVENT is selected.
>>> -	 */
>>> -	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM_PMU) && perf_num_counters() > 0)
>>> +	if (kvm_pmu_probe_pmuver() != 0xf)
>> The probe() function may be called many times
>> (kvm_arm_pmu_v3_set_attr also calls it).  I don't know whether the
>> first calling is enough. If so, can we use a static variable in it,
>> so the following calling can return the result right away?
> 
> No, because that wouldn't help with crappy big-little implementations
> that could have PMUs with different versions. We want to find the
> version at the point where the virtual PMU is created, which is why we
> call the probe function once per vcpu.
I see.

But AFAICS the pmuver is placed in kvm->arch, and the probe function is called
once per VM. Maybe I miss something.

> 
> This of course is broken in other ways (BL+KVM is a total disaster
> when it comes to PMU), but making this static would just make it
> worse.
OK.

Thanks,
Keqian