| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAJHc60yLOc55WQJQ1cDoQ+pcuv376xBBgmZGKBsvZ+7gshuyvw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2023 14:45:25 -0800
From: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com>
To: Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@...gle.com>
Cc: Oliver Upton <oupton@...gle.com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Ricardo Koller <ricarkol@...gle.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@...gle.com>,
Colton Lewis <coltonlewis@...gle.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [REPOST PATCH 08/16] selftests: KVM: aarch64: Consider PMU event
filters for VM creation
Hi Reiji,
On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 8:31 PM Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Raghu,
>
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 5:07 PM Raghavendra Rao Ananta
> <rananta@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Accept a list of KVM PMU event filters as an argument while creating
> > a VM via create_vpmu_vm(). Upcoming patches would leverage this to
> > test the event filters' functionality.
> >
> > No functional change intended.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com>
> > ---
> > .../testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_test.c | 64 +++++++++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_test.c
> > index 15aebc7d7dc94..2b3a4fa3afa9c 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_test.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_test.c
> > @@ -15,10 +15,14 @@
> > #include <vgic.h>
> > #include <asm/perf_event.h>
> > #include <linux/bitfield.h>
> > +#include <linux/bitmap.h>
> >
> > /* The max number of the PMU event counters (excluding the cycle counter) */
> > #define ARMV8_PMU_MAX_GENERAL_COUNTERS (ARMV8_PMU_MAX_COUNTERS - 1)
> >
> > +/* The max number of event numbers that's supported */
> > +#define ARMV8_PMU_MAX_EVENTS 64
>
> The name and the comment would be a bit misleading.
> (This sounds like a max number of events that are supported by ARMv8)
>
> Perhaps 'MAX_EVENT_FILTER_BITS' would be more clear ?
>
>
You are right. It should actually represent the event filter bits.
Even the value is incorrect. It should be 16 and would change the loop
iteration logic in guest_event_filter_test(). Thanks for catching
this!
> > +
> > /*
> > * The macros and functions below for reading/writing PMEV{CNTR,TYPER}<n>_EL0
> > * were basically copied from arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c.
> > @@ -224,6 +228,8 @@ struct pmc_accessor pmc_accessors[] = {
> > { read_sel_evcntr, write_pmevcntrn, read_sel_evtyper, write_pmevtypern },
> > };
> >
> > +#define MAX_EVENT_FILTERS_PER_VM 10
>
> (Looking at just this patch,) it appears 'PER_VM' in the name
> might be rather misleading ?
>
Probably it's not clear. It should represent the max number of event
filter configurations that can be applied to a VM. Would a comment
help?
> > +
> > #define INVALID_EC (-1ul)
> > uint64_t expected_ec = INVALID_EC;
> > uint64_t op_end_addr;
> > @@ -232,6 +238,7 @@ struct vpmu_vm {
> > struct kvm_vm *vm;
> > struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> > int gic_fd;
> > + unsigned long *pmu_filter;
> > };
> >
> > enum test_stage {
> > @@ -541,8 +548,51 @@ static void guest_code(void)
> > #define GICD_BASE_GPA 0x8000000ULL
> > #define GICR_BASE_GPA 0x80A0000ULL
> >
> > +static unsigned long *
> > +set_event_filters(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *pmu_event_filters)
>
> Can you add a comment that explains the function ?
> (especially for @pmu_event_filters and the return value ?)
>
Yes, I'll add a comment
> > +{
> > + int j;
> > + unsigned long *pmu_filter;
> > + struct kvm_device_attr filter_attr = {
> > + .group = KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_CTRL,
> > + .attr = KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_FILTER,
> > + };
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Setting up of the bitmap is similar to what KVM does.
> > + * If the first filter denys an event, default all the others to allow, and vice-versa.
> > + */
> > + pmu_filter = bitmap_zalloc(ARMV8_PMU_MAX_EVENTS);
> > + TEST_ASSERT(pmu_filter, "Failed to allocate the pmu_filter");
> > +
> > + if (pmu_event_filters[0].action == KVM_PMU_EVENT_DENY)
> > + bitmap_fill(pmu_filter, ARMV8_PMU_MAX_EVENTS);
> > +
> > + for (j = 0; j < MAX_EVENT_FILTERS_PER_VM; j++) {
> > + struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *pmu_event_filter = &pmu_event_filters[j];
> > +
> > + if (!pmu_event_filter->nevents)
>
> What does this mean ? (the end of the valid entry in the array ?)
>
Yes, it should represent the end of an array. I can add a comment if
it's unclear.
>
> > + break;
> > +
> > + pr_debug("Applying event filter:: event: 0x%x; action: %s\n",
> > + pmu_event_filter->base_event,
> > + pmu_event_filter->action == KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW ? "ALLOW" : "DENY");
> > +
> > + filter_attr.addr = (uint64_t) pmu_event_filter;
> > + vcpu_ioctl(vcpu, KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR, &filter_attr);
> > +
> > + if (pmu_event_filter->action == KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW)
> > + __set_bit(pmu_event_filter->base_event, pmu_filter);
> > + else
> > + __clear_bit(pmu_event_filter->base_event, pmu_filter);
> > + }
> > +
> > + return pmu_filter;
> > +}
> > +
> > /* Create a VM that has one vCPU with PMUv3 configured. */
> > -static struct vpmu_vm *create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code)
> > +static struct vpmu_vm *
> > +create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code, struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *pmu_event_filters)
> > {
> > struct kvm_vm *vm;
> > struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> > @@ -586,6 +636,9 @@ static struct vpmu_vm *create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code)
> > "Unexpected PMUVER (0x%x) on the vCPU with PMUv3", pmuver);
> >
> > /* Initialize vPMU */
> > + if (pmu_event_filters)
> > + vpmu_vm->pmu_filter = set_event_filters(vcpu, pmu_event_filters);
> > +
> > vcpu_ioctl(vcpu, KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR, &irq_attr);
> > vcpu_ioctl(vcpu, KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR, &init_attr);
> >
> > @@ -594,6 +647,8 @@ static struct vpmu_vm *create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code)
> >
> > static void destroy_vpmu_vm(struct vpmu_vm *vpmu_vm)
> > {
> > + if (vpmu_vm->pmu_filter)
> > + bitmap_free(vpmu_vm->pmu_filter);
> > close(vpmu_vm->gic_fd);
> > kvm_vm_free(vpmu_vm->vm);
> > free(vpmu_vm);
> > @@ -631,7 +686,7 @@ static void run_counter_access_test(uint64_t pmcr_n)
> > guest_data.expected_pmcr_n = pmcr_n;
> >
> > pr_debug("Test with pmcr_n %lu\n", pmcr_n);
> > - vpmu_vm = create_vpmu_vm(guest_code);
> > + vpmu_vm = create_vpmu_vm(guest_code, NULL);
> > vcpu = vpmu_vm->vcpu;
> >
> > /* Save the initial sp to restore them later to run the guest again */
> > @@ -676,7 +731,7 @@ static void run_counter_access_error_test(uint64_t pmcr_n)
> > guest_data.expected_pmcr_n = pmcr_n;
> >
> > pr_debug("Error test with pmcr_n %lu (larger than the host)\n", pmcr_n);
> > - vpmu_vm = create_vpmu_vm(guest_code);
> > + vpmu_vm = create_vpmu_vm(guest_code, NULL);
> > vcpu = vpmu_vm->vcpu;
> >
> > /* Update the PMCR_EL0.N with @pmcr_n */
> > @@ -719,9 +774,10 @@ static uint64_t get_pmcr_n_limit(void)
> > struct vpmu_vm *vpmu_vm;
> > uint64_t pmcr;
> >
> > - vpmu_vm = create_vpmu_vm(guest_code);
> > + vpmu_vm = create_vpmu_vm(guest_code, NULL);
> > vcpu_get_reg(vpmu_vm->vcpu, KVM_ARM64_SYS_REG(SYS_PMCR_EL0), &pmcr);
> > destroy_vpmu_vm(vpmu_vm);
> > +
> > return FIELD_GET(ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N, pmcr);
> > }
>
> Thank you,
> Reiji
>
>
> >
> > --
> > 2.39.1.581.gbfd45094c4-goog
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists