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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 14 Nov 2023 11:07:27 +0800
From:   Jinrong Liang <ljr.kernel@...il.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Aaron Lewis <aaronlewis@...gle.com>,
        Like Xu <likexu@...cent.com>,
        Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 26/26] KVM: selftests: Extend PMU counters test to
 validate RDPMC after WRMSR

Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> 于2023年11月13日周一 21:40写道:
>
> On Mon, Nov 13, 2023, Jinrong Liang wrote:
> > 在 2023/11/10 10:13, Sean Christopherson 写道:
> > > Extend the read/write PMU counters subtest to verify that RDPMC also reads
> > > back the written value.  Opportunsitically verify that attempting to use
> > > the "fast" mode of RDPMC fails, as the "fast" flag is only supported by
> > > non-architectural PMUs, which KVM doesn't virtualize.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
> > > ---
> > > +           /* Redo the read tests with RDPMC, and with forced emulation. */
> > > +           vector = rdpmc_safe(rdpmc_idx, &val);
> > > +           GUEST_ASSERT_PMC_MSR_ACCESS(RDPMC, rdpmc_idx, !expect_success, vector);
> > > +           if (expect_success)
> > > +                   GUEST_ASSERT_PMC_VALUE(RDPMC, rdpmc_idx, val, expected_val);
> > > +
> > > +           vector = rdpmc_safe_fep(rdpmc_idx, &val);
> > > +           GUEST_ASSERT_PMC_MSR_ACCESS(RDPMC, rdpmc_idx, !expect_success, vector);
> > > +           if (expect_success)
> > > +                   GUEST_ASSERT_PMC_VALUE(RDPMC, rdpmc_idx, val, expected_val);
>
> > This test case failed on my Intel machine.
> >
> > Error message:
> > Testing arch events, PMU version 0, perf_caps = 0
> > Testing GP counters, PMU version 0, perf_caps = 0
> > ==== Test Assertion Failure ====
> >   lib/x86_64/processor.c:1100: Unhandled exception in guest
> >   pid=464480 tid=464480 errno=4 - Interrupted system call
> >      1        0x00000000004120e1: assert_on_unhandled_exception 于 processor.c:1146
> >      2        0x00000000004062d9: _vcpu_run 于 kvm_util.c:1634
> >      3        0x00000000004062fa: vcpu_run 于 kvm_util.c:1645
> >      4        0x0000000000403697: run_vcpu 于 pmu_counters_test.c:56
> >      5        0x00000000004026fc: test_gp_counters 于 pmu_counters_test.c:434
> >      6        (已内连入)test_intel_counters 于 pmu_counters_test.c:580
> >      7        (已内连入)main 于 pmu_counters_test.c:604
> >      8        0x00007f7a2f03ad84: ?? ??:0
> >      9        0x00000000004028bd: _start 于 ??:?
> >   Unhandled exception '0x6' at guest RIP '0x402bab'
>
> Argh, I didn't add a check to see if forced emulation is actually enabled (forced
> emulation uses a magic "prefix" to trigger a #UD, which KVM intercepts; if forced
> emulation isn't enabled, KVM ignores the magic prefix and reflects the #UD back
> into the guest).
>
> This fixes the test for me:
>
> ---
>  .../selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_counters_test.c  | 42 ++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_counters_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_counters_test.c
> index 248ebe8c0577..ae5f6042f1e8 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_counters_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86_64/pmu_counters_test.c
> @@ -325,6 +325,26 @@ __GUEST_ASSERT(expect_gp ? vector == GP_VECTOR : !vector,                  \
>                        "Expected " #insn "(0x%x) to yield 0x%lx, got 0x%lx",    \
>                        msr, expected_val, val);
>
> +static void guest_test_rdpmc(uint32_t rdpmc_idx, bool expect_success,
> +                            uint64_t expected_val)
> +{
> +       uint8_t vector;
> +       uint64_t val;
> +
> +       vector = rdpmc_safe(rdpmc_idx, &val);
> +       GUEST_ASSERT_PMC_MSR_ACCESS(RDPMC, rdpmc_idx, !expect_success, vector);
> +       if (expect_success)
> +               GUEST_ASSERT_PMC_VALUE(RDPMC, rdpmc_idx, val, expected_val);
> +
> +       if (!is_forced_emulation_enabled)
> +               return;
> +
> +       vector = rdpmc_safe_fep(rdpmc_idx, &val);
> +       GUEST_ASSERT_PMC_MSR_ACCESS(RDPMC, rdpmc_idx, !expect_success, vector);
> +       if (expect_success)
> +               GUEST_ASSERT_PMC_VALUE(RDPMC, rdpmc_idx, val, expected_val);
> +}
> +
>  static void guest_rd_wr_counters(uint32_t base_msr, uint8_t nr_possible_counters,
>                                  uint8_t nr_counters, uint32_t or_mask)
>  {
> @@ -367,20 +387,15 @@ static void guest_rd_wr_counters(uint32_t base_msr, uint8_t nr_possible_counters
>                 if (!expect_gp)
>                         GUEST_ASSERT_PMC_VALUE(RDMSR, msr, val, expected_val);
>
> +               /*
> +                * Redo the read tests with RDPMC, which has different indexing
> +                * semantics and additional capabilities.
> +                */
>                 rdpmc_idx = i;
>                 if (base_msr == MSR_CORE_PERF_FIXED_CTR0)
>                         rdpmc_idx |= INTEL_RDPMC_FIXED;
>
> -               /* Redo the read tests with RDPMC, and with forced emulation. */
> -               vector = rdpmc_safe(rdpmc_idx, &val);
> -               GUEST_ASSERT_PMC_MSR_ACCESS(RDPMC, rdpmc_idx, !expect_success, vector);
> -               if (expect_success)
> -                       GUEST_ASSERT_PMC_VALUE(RDPMC, rdpmc_idx, val, expected_val);
> -
> -               vector = rdpmc_safe_fep(rdpmc_idx, &val);
> -               GUEST_ASSERT_PMC_MSR_ACCESS(RDPMC, rdpmc_idx, !expect_success, vector);
> -               if (expect_success)
> -                       GUEST_ASSERT_PMC_VALUE(RDPMC, rdpmc_idx, val, expected_val);
> +               guest_test_rdpmc(rdpmc_idx, expect_success, expected_val);
>
>                 /*
>                  * KVM doesn't support non-architectural PMUs, i.e. it should
> @@ -389,12 +404,7 @@ static void guest_rd_wr_counters(uint32_t base_msr, uint8_t nr_possible_counters
>                  */
>                 GUEST_ASSERT(!expect_success || !pmu_has_fast_mode);
>                 rdpmc_idx |= INTEL_RDPMC_FAST;
> -
> -               vector = rdpmc_safe(rdpmc_idx, &val);
> -               GUEST_ASSERT_PMC_MSR_ACCESS(RDPMC, rdpmc_idx, true, vector);
> -
> -               vector = rdpmc_safe_fep(rdpmc_idx, &val);
> -               GUEST_ASSERT_PMC_MSR_ACCESS(RDPMC, rdpmc_idx, true, vector);
> +               guest_test_rdpmc(rdpmc_idx, false, -1ull);
>
>                 vector = wrmsr_safe(msr, 0);
>                 GUEST_ASSERT_PMC_MSR_ACCESS(WRMSR, msr, expect_gp, vector);
>
> base-commit: 743a1a6d106931691be32e081e929d9b3de5777f
> --

This fix worked perfectly, thanks.

>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists