linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 3/6] KVM: selftests: Introduce __kvm_pmu_event

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: <20230814234926.GD2257301@ls.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Aug 2023 16:49:26 -0700
From:   Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>
To:     Jinrong Liang <ljr.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Aaron Lewis <aaronlewis@...gle.com>,
        David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
        Vishal Annapurve <vannapurve@...gle.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>,
        Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@...cent.com>,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, isaku.yamahata@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/6] KVM: selftests: Introduce __kvm_pmu_event_filter
 to improved event filter settings

On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 05:09:42PM +0800,
Jinrong Liang <ljr.kernel@...il.com> wrote:

> From: Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@...cent.com>
> 
> Add custom "__kvm_pmu_event_filter" structure to improve pmu event
> filter settings. Simplifies event filter setup by organizing event
> filter parameters in a cleaner, more organized way.
> 
> Suggested-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@...cent.com>
> ---
>  .../kvm/x86_64/pmu_event_filter_test.c        | 182 +++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 90 insertions(+), 92 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_event_filter_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_event_filter_test.c
> index 5ac05e64bec9..94f5a89aac40 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_event_filter_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_event_filter_test.c
> @@ -28,6 +28,10 @@
>  
>  #define NUM_BRANCHES 42
>  
> +/* Matches KVM_PMU_EVENT_FILTER_MAX_EVENTS in pmu.c */
> +#define MAX_FILTER_EVENTS		300

Can we simply use KVM_PMU_EVENT_FILTER_MAX_EVENTS and remove MAX_FILTER_EVENTS?


> +#define MAX_TEST_EVENTS		10
> +
>  /*
>   * This is how the event selector and unit mask are stored in an AMD
>   * core performance event-select register. Intel's format is similar,
> @@ -69,21 +73,33 @@
>  
>  #define INST_RETIRED EVENT(0xc0, 0)
>  
> +struct __kvm_pmu_event_filter {
> +	__u32 action;
> +	__u32 nevents;
> +	__u32 fixed_counter_bitmap;
> +	__u32 flags;
> +	__u32 pad[4];
> +	__u64 events[MAX_FILTER_EVENTS];
> +};
> +

Is this same to struct kvm_pmu_event_filter?

Except two trivial issue, looks good to me.
-- 
Isaku Yamahata <isaku.yamahata@...il.com>