linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 07/12] KVM: arm64: PMU: Set PMCR_EL0.N for vCPU based on the associated PMU

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: <ZS2L6uIlUtkltyrF@linux.dev>
Date:   Mon, 16 Oct 2023 19:15:54 +0000
From:   Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>
To:     Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com>
Cc:     Sebastian Ott <sebott@...hat.com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        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>,
        Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@...hat.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 v7 07/12] KVM: arm64: PMU: Set PMCR_EL0.N for vCPU based
 on the associated PMU

On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 12:02:27PM -0700, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 6:35 AM Sebastian Ott <sebott@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 9 Oct 2023, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> > > u64 kvm_vcpu_read_pmcr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > {
> > > -     return __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCR_EL0);
> > > +     u64 pmcr = __vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCR_EL0) &
> > > +                     ~(ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_MASK << ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_SHIFT);
> > > +
> > > +     return pmcr | ((u64)vcpu->kvm->arch.pmcr_n << ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_SHIFT);
> > > }
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> > > index ff0f7095eaca..c750722fbe4a 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> > > @@ -745,12 +745,8 @@ static u64 reset_pmcr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct sys_reg_desc *r)
> > > {
> > >       u64 pmcr;
> > >
> > > -     /* No PMU available, PMCR_EL0 may UNDEF... */
> > > -     if (!kvm_arm_support_pmu_v3())
> > > -             return 0;
> > > -
> > >       /* Only preserve PMCR_EL0.N, and reset the rest to 0 */
> > > -     pmcr = read_sysreg(pmcr_el0) & (ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_MASK << ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_SHIFT);
> > > +     pmcr = kvm_vcpu_read_pmcr(vcpu) & (ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_MASK << ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_SHIFT);
> >
> > pmcr = ((u64)vcpu->kvm->arch.pmcr_n << ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_SHIFT);
> > Would that maybe make it more clear what is done here?
> >
> Since we require the entire PMCR register, and not just the PMCR.N
> field, I think using kvm_vcpu_read_pmcr() would be technically
> correct, don't you think?

No, this isn't using the entire PMCR value, it is just grabbing
PMCR_EL0.N.

What's the point of doing this in the first place? The implementation of
kvm_vcpu_read_pmcr() is populating PMCR_EL0.N using the VM-scoped value.

-- 
Thanks,
Oliver