Message-ID: <CAJHc60zh40KpU4+-ttdeE3vyH-CAw1BWEFf1YSR7cB0zfWjfqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 23 Oct 2023 10:53:26 -0700
From:   Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com>
To:     Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc:     Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
        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 v8 07/13] KVM: arm64: PMU: Allow userspace to limit
 PMCR_EL0.N for the guest

On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 6:00 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2023 22:40:47 +0100,
> Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@...gle.com> 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 userspace).
> > Add support userspace limiting PMCR_EL0.N.
> >
> > Disallow userspace to set PMCR_EL0.N to a value that is greater
> > than the host value as KVM doesn't support more event counters
> > than what the host HW implements. Also, make this register
> > immutable after the VM has started running. To maintain the
> > existing expectations, instead of returning an error, KVM
> > returns a success for these two cases.
> >
> > Finally, 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/kvm/sys_regs.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> > index 2e5d497596ef8..a2c5f210b3d6b 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> > @@ -1176,6 +1176,59 @@ 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;
>
> Really, this lacks consistency. Either you make N a u8 everywhere, or
> a u64 everywhere. I don't mind either, but the type confusion is not
> great.
>
Sorry about that. I'll make it u8 across the board.

> > +
> > +     mutex_lock(&kvm->arch.config_lock);
> > +
> > +     /*
> > +      * Make PMCR immutable once the VM has started running, but
> > +      * do not return an error to meet the existing expectations.
> > +      */
> > +     if (kvm_vm_has_ran_once(vcpu->kvm)) {
> > +             mutex_unlock(&kvm->arch.config_lock);
> > +             return 0;
> > +     }
> > +
> > +     new_n = (val >> ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_SHIFT) & ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_MASK;
> > +     if (new_n != kvm->arch.pmcr_n) {
>
> Why do we need to check this?
>
Hmm, it may be redundant. I guess we can skip this, check for the
limit, and directly write new_n to kvm->arch.pmcr_n.

> > +             u8 pmcr_n_limit = kvm_arm_pmu_get_max_counters(kvm);
>
> Can you see why I'm annoyed?
>
Yes. I'll make these consistent.

> > +
> > +             /*
> > +              * The vCPU can't have more counters than the PMU hardware
> > +              * implements. Ignore this error to maintain compatibility
> > +              * with the existing KVM behavior.
> > +              */
> > +             if (new_n <= pmcr_n_limit)
>
> Isn't this the only thing that actually matters?
>
Yes, I'll remove the above check.

> > +                     kvm->arch.pmcr_n = new_n;
> > +     }
> > +     mutex_unlock(&kvm->arch.config_lock);
> > +
> > +     /*
> > +      * 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_MASK << ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N_SHIFT));
>
> Why is N part of the 'mutable' mask? The only bits that should make it
> into the register are ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_MASK.
>
> > +     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;
>
> I think this should be rewritten as:
>
>         val &= ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_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;
>
> And that's it. Drop this 'mutable_mask' nonsense, as we should be
> getting the correct value (merge of the per-vcpu register and VM-wide
> N) since patch 4.
>
Sure, I'll consider this.

Thank you.
Raghavendra

Powered by blists - more mailing lists