linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 10/28] KVM: x86/pmu: Explicitly check for RDPMC of unsupported Intel PMC types

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: <CALMp9eSp_9J9t3ByfHfnirXf=uxvWVWVtLWO5KPoO0nDFJ-gtw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Dec 2023 13:33:29 -0800
From:   Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
To:     "Mi, Dapeng" <dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@...cent.com>,
        Aaron Lewis <aaronlewis@...gle.com>,
        Like Xu <likexu@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 10/28] KVM: x86/pmu: Explicitly check for RDPMC of
 unsupported Intel PMC types

On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 10:26 PM Mi, Dapeng <dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 12/2/2023 8:03 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Explicitly check for attempts to read unsupported PMC types instead of
> > letting the bounds check fail.  Functionally, letting the check fail is
> > ok, but it's unnecessarily subtle and does a poor job of documenting the
> > architectural behavior that KVM is emulating.
> >
> > Opportunistically add macros for the type vs. index to further document
> > what is going on.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
> > ---
> >   arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c | 11 +++++++++--
> >   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
> > index 644de27bd48a..bd4f4bdf5419 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
> > @@ -23,6 +23,9 @@
> >   /* Perf's "BASE" is wildly misleading, this is a single-bit flag, not a base. */
> >   #define INTEL_RDPMC_FIXED   INTEL_PMC_FIXED_RDPMC_BASE
> >
> > +#define INTEL_RDPMC_TYPE_MASK        GENMASK(31, 16)
> > +#define INTEL_RDPMC_INDEX_MASK       GENMASK(15, 0)
> > +
> >   #define MSR_PMC_FULL_WIDTH_BIT      (MSR_IA32_PMC0 - MSR_IA32_PERFCTR0)
> >
> >   static void reprogram_fixed_counters(struct kvm_pmu *pmu, u64 data)
> > @@ -82,9 +85,13 @@ static struct kvm_pmc *intel_rdpmc_ecx_to_pmc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> >       /*
> >        * Fixed PMCs are supported on all architectural PMUs.  Note, KVM only
> >        * emulates fixed PMCs for PMU v2+, but the flag itself is still valid,
> > -      * i.e. let RDPMC fail due to accessing a non-existent counter.
> > +      * i.e. let RDPMC fail due to accessing a non-existent counter.  Reject
> > +      * attempts to read all other types, which are unknown/unsupported.
> >        */
> > -     idx &= ~INTEL_RDPMC_FIXED;
> > +     if (idx & INTEL_RDPMC_TYPE_MASK & ~INTEL_RDPMC_FIXED)

You know how I hate to be pedantic (ROFL), but the SDM only says:

If the processor does support architectural performance monitoring
(CPUID.0AH:EAX[7:0] ≠ 0), ECX[31:16] specifies type of PMC while
ECX[15:0] specifies the index of the PMC to be read within that type.

It does not say that the types are bitwise-exclusive.

Yes, the types defined thus far are bitwise-exclusive, but who knows
what tomorrow may bring?

> > +             return NULL;
> > +
> > +     idx &= INTEL_RDPMC_INDEX_MASK;
> >       if (fixed) {
> >               counters = pmu->fixed_counters;
> >               num_counters = pmu->nr_arch_fixed_counters;
> Reviewed-by: Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com>