| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2022 15:08:34 -0800
From: Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>
To: Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>
Cc: Atish Patra <atishp@...osinc.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>, Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 6/9] RISC-V: KVM: Add SBI PMU extension support
On Tue, Nov 1, 2022 at 7:26 AM Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 10:02:02AM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
> > SBI PMU extension allows KVM guests to configure/start/stop/query about
> > the PMU counters in virtualized enviornment as well.
> >
> > In order to allow that, KVM implements the entire SBI PMU extension.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atishp@...osinc.com>
> > ---
> > arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi.c | 11 +++++
> > arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi_pmu.c | 81 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 92 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi_pmu.c
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi.c b/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi.c
> > index d45e7da3f0d3..da9f7959340e 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi.c
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi.c
> > @@ -50,6 +50,16 @@ extern const struct kvm_vcpu_sbi_extension vcpu_sbi_ext_hsm;
> > extern const struct kvm_vcpu_sbi_extension vcpu_sbi_ext_experimental;
> > extern const struct kvm_vcpu_sbi_extension vcpu_sbi_ext_vendor;
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_RISCV_PMU_SBI
> > +extern const struct kvm_vcpu_sbi_extension vcpu_sbi_ext_pmu;
> > +#else
> > +static const struct kvm_vcpu_sbi_extension vcpu_sbi_ext_pmu = {
> > + .extid_start = -1UL,
> > + .extid_end = -1UL,
> > + .handler = NULL,
> > +};
> > +#endif
> > +
> > static const struct kvm_vcpu_sbi_extension *sbi_ext[] = {
> > &vcpu_sbi_ext_v01,
> > &vcpu_sbi_ext_base,
> > @@ -58,6 +68,7 @@ static const struct kvm_vcpu_sbi_extension *sbi_ext[] = {
> > &vcpu_sbi_ext_rfence,
> > &vcpu_sbi_ext_srst,
> > &vcpu_sbi_ext_hsm,
> > + &vcpu_sbi_ext_pmu,
> > &vcpu_sbi_ext_experimental,
> > &vcpu_sbi_ext_vendor,
> > };
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi_pmu.c b/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi_pmu.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..90c51a95d4f4
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi_pmu.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +/*
> > + * Copyright (c) 2022 Rivos Inc
> > + *
> > + * Authors:
> > + * Atish Patra <atishp@...osinc.com>
> > + */
> > +
> > +#include <linux/errno.h>
> > +#include <linux/err.h>
> > +#include <linux/kvm_host.h>
> > +#include <asm/csr.h>
> > +#include <asm/sbi.h>
> > +#include <asm/kvm_vcpu_sbi.h>
> > +
> > +static int kvm_sbi_ext_pmu_handler(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run,
> > + unsigned long *out_val,
> > + struct kvm_cpu_trap *utrap,
> > + bool *exit)
> > +{
> > + int ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > + struct kvm_cpu_context *cp = &vcpu->arch.guest_context;
> > + unsigned long funcid = cp->a6;
> > + uint64_t temp;
>
> I think we need something like
>
> if (!vcpu_to_pmu(vcpu)->enabled)
> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>
> here. Where 'enabled' is only true when we successfully initialize
> the pmu. And, successful initialization depends on
Yes. I have added the flag. But should we do the check here or
respective function
as a paranoia sanity check ?
> IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RISCV_PMU_SBI) and
Why do we need to guard under CONFIG_RISCV_PMU_SBI ?
vcpu_sbi_pmu.c is only compiled under CONFIG_RISCV_PMU_SBI
If CONFIG_RISCV_PMU_SBI is not enabled, probe function will return failure.
In fact, I think we should also add the pmu enabled check in the probe function
itself. Probe function(kvm_sbi_ext_pmu_probe) should only true when
both vcpu_to_pmu(vcpu)->enabled and
riscv_isa_extension_available(NULL, SSCOFPMF) are true.
Thoughts?
> riscv_isa_extension_available(NULL, SSCOFPMF) as well as not
> failing other things. And, KVM userspace should be able to
> disable the pmu, which keep enabled from being set as well.
>
We already have provisions for disabling sscofpmf from guests via ISA
one reg interface.
Do you mean disable the entire PMU from userspace ?
Currently, ARM64 enables pmu from user space using device control APIs
on vcpu fd.
Are you suggesting we should do something like that ?
If PMU needs to have device control APIs (either via vcpu fd or its
own), we can retrieve
the hpmcounter width and count from there as well.
> > +
> > + switch (funcid) {
> > + case SBI_EXT_PMU_NUM_COUNTERS:
> > + ret = kvm_riscv_vcpu_pmu_num_ctrs(vcpu, out_val);
> > + break;
> > + case SBI_EXT_PMU_COUNTER_GET_INFO:
> > + ret = kvm_riscv_vcpu_pmu_ctr_info(vcpu, cp->a0, out_val);
> > + break;
> > + case SBI_EXT_PMU_COUNTER_CFG_MATCH:
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_32BIT)
> > + temp = ((uint64_t)cp->a5 << 32) | cp->a4;
> > +#else
> > + temp = cp->a4;
> > +#endif
> > + ret = kvm_riscv_vcpu_pmu_ctr_cfg_match(vcpu, cp->a0, cp->a1, cp->a2, cp->a3, temp);
> > + if (ret >= 0) {
> > + *out_val = ret;
> > + ret = 0;
> > + }
> > + break;
> > + case SBI_EXT_PMU_COUNTER_START:
> > +#if defined(CONFIG_32BIT)
> > + temp = ((uint64_t)cp->a4 << 32) | cp->a3;
> > +#else
> > + temp = cp->a3;
> > +#endif
> > + ret = kvm_riscv_vcpu_pmu_ctr_start(vcpu, cp->a0, cp->a1, cp->a2, temp);
> > + break;
> > + case SBI_EXT_PMU_COUNTER_STOP:
> > + ret = kvm_riscv_vcpu_pmu_ctr_stop(vcpu, cp->a0, cp->a1, cp->a2);
> > + break;
> > + case SBI_EXT_PMU_COUNTER_FW_READ:
> > + ret = kvm_riscv_vcpu_pmu_ctr_read(vcpu, cp->a0, out_val);
> > + break;
> > + default:
> > + ret = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +unsigned long kvm_sbi_ext_pmu_probe(unsigned long extid)
> > +{
> > + /*
> > + * PMU Extension is only available to guests if privilege mode filtering
> > + * is available. Otherwise, guest will always count events while the
> > + * execution is in hypervisor mode.
> > + */
> > + return riscv_isa_extension_available(NULL, SSCOFPMF);
> > +}
> > +
> > +const struct kvm_vcpu_sbi_extension vcpu_sbi_ext_pmu = {
> > + .extid_start = SBI_EXT_PMU,
> > + .extid_end = SBI_EXT_PMU,
> > + .handler = kvm_sbi_ext_pmu_handler,
> > + .probe = kvm_sbi_ext_pmu_probe,
> > +};
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
>
> Thanks,
> drew
--
Regards,
Atish
Powered by blists - more mailing lists