| 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: <1c6c07af-f6d0-89a6-1b7d-164ca100ac88@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 18:05:47 +0800
From: Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@...hat.com>
To: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com>,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>,
Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@...gle.com>,
Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@...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: [PATCH v5 08/12] KVM: arm64: PMU: Allow userspace to limit
PMCR_EL0.N for the guest
Hi Raghavendra,
On 8/17/23 08:30, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> From: Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@...gle.com>
>
> KVM does not yet support userspace modifying PMCR_EL0.N (With
> the previous patch, KVM ignores what is written by upserspace).
> Add support userspace limiting PMCR_EL0.N.
>
> Disallow userspace to set PMCR_EL0.N to a value that is greater
> than the host value (KVM_SET_ONE_REG will fail), as KVM doesn't
> support more event counters than the host HW implements.
> Although this is an ABI change, this change only affects
> userspace setting PMCR_EL0.N to a larger value than the host.
> As accesses to unadvertised event counters indices is CONSTRAINED
> UNPREDICTABLE behavior, and PMCR_EL0.N was reset to the host value
> on every vCPU reset before this series, I can't think of any
> use case where a user space would do that.
>
> Also, ignore writes to read-only bits that are cleared on vCPU reset,
> and RES{0,1} bits (including writable bits that KVM doesn't support
> yet), as those bits shouldn't be modified (at least with
> the current KVM).
>
> Signed-off-by: Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 3 ++
> arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c | 1 +
> arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 3 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index 0f2dbbe8f6a7e..c15ec365283d1 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -259,6 +259,9 @@ struct kvm_arch {
> /* PMCR_EL0.N value for the guest */
> u8 pmcr_n;
>
> + /* Limit value of PMCR_EL0.N for the guest */
> + u8 pmcr_n_limit;
> +
> /* Hypercall features firmware registers' descriptor */
> struct kvm_smccc_features smccc_feat;
> struct maple_tree smccc_filter;
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
> index ce7de6bbdc967..39ad56a71ad20 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
> @@ -896,6 +896,7 @@ int kvm_arm_set_vm_pmu(struct kvm *kvm, struct arm_pmu *arm_pmu)
> * while the latter does not.
> */
> kvm->arch.pmcr_n = arm_pmu->num_events - 1;
> + kvm->arch.pmcr_n_limit = arm_pmu->num_events - 1;
>
> return 0;
> }
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> index 2075901356c5b..c01d62afa7db4 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> @@ -1086,6 +1086,51 @@ static int get_pmcr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct sys_reg_desc *r,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int set_pmcr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct sys_reg_desc *r,
> + u64 val)
> +{
> + struct kvm *kvm = vcpu->kvm;
> + u64 new_n, mutable_mask;
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + new_n = FIELD_GET(ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N, val);
> +
> + mutex_lock(&kvm->arch.config_lock);
> + if (unlikely(new_n != kvm->arch.pmcr_n)) {
> + /*
> + * The vCPU can't have more counters than the PMU
> + * hardware implements.
> + */
> + if (new_n <= kvm->arch.pmcr_n_limit)
> + kvm->arch.pmcr_n = new_n;
> + else
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + }
> + mutex_unlock(&kvm->arch.config_lock);
Another thing I am just wonder is that should we block any modification
to the pmcr_n after vm start to run? Like add one more checking
kvm_vm_has_ran_once() at the beginning of the set_pmcr() function.
Thanks,
Shaoqin
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + /*
> + * Ignore writes to RES0 bits, read only bits that are cleared on
> + * vCPU reset, and writable bits that KVM doesn't support yet.
> + * (i.e. only PMCR.N and bits [7:0] are mutable from userspace)
> + * The LP bit is RES0 when FEAT_PMUv3p5 is not supported on the vCPU.
> + * But, we leave the bit as it is here, as the vCPU's PMUver might
> + * be changed later (NOTE: the bit will be cleared on first vCPU run
> + * if necessary).
> + */
> + mutable_mask = (ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_MASK | ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N);
> + val &= mutable_mask;
> + val |= (__vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, r->reg) & ~mutable_mask);
> +
> + /* The LC bit is RES1 when AArch32 is not supported */
> + if (!kvm_supports_32bit_el0())
> + val |= ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_LC;
> +
> + __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, r->reg) = val;
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> /* Silly macro to expand the DBG{BCR,BVR,WVR,WCR}n_EL1 registers in one go */
> #define DBG_BCR_BVR_WCR_WVR_EL1(n) \
> { SYS_DESC(SYS_DBGBVRn_EL1(n)), \
> @@ -2147,8 +2192,8 @@ static const struct sys_reg_desc sys_reg_descs[] = {
> { SYS_DESC(SYS_CTR_EL0), access_ctr },
> { SYS_DESC(SYS_SVCR), undef_access },
>
> - { PMU_SYS_REG(PMCR_EL0), .access = access_pmcr,
> - .reset = reset_pmcr, .reg = PMCR_EL0, .get_user = get_pmcr },
> + { PMU_SYS_REG(PMCR_EL0), .access = access_pmcr, .reset = reset_pmcr,
> + .reg = PMCR_EL0, .get_user = get_pmcr, .set_user = set_pmcr },
> { PMU_SYS_REG(PMCNTENSET_EL0),
> .access = access_pmcnten, .reg = PMCNTENSET_EL0 },
> { PMU_SYS_REG(PMCNTENCLR_EL0),
--
Shaoqin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists