Re: [PATCH v2 00/18] arm64: KVM: add SPE profiling support

[Marc Zyngier]

On Sat, 21 Dec 2019 10:48:16 +0000,
Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> [fixing email addresses]
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
> On 2019-12-20 14:30, Andrew Murray wrote:
> > This series implements support for allowing KVM guests to use the Arm
> > Statistical Profiling Extension (SPE).
> 
> Thanks for this. In future, please Cc me and Will on email addresses
> we can actually read.
> 
> > It has been tested on a model to ensure that both host and guest can
> > simultaneously use SPE with valid data. E.g.
> > 
> > $ perf record -e arm_spe/ts_enable=1,pa_enable=1,pct_enable=1/ \
> >         dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null count=1000
> > $ perf report --dump-raw-trace > spe_buf.txt
> > 
> > As we save and restore the SPE context, the guest can access the SPE
> > registers directly, thus in this version of the series we remove the
> > trapping and emulation.
> > 
> > In the previous series of this support, when KVM SPE isn't
> > supported (e.g. via CONFIG_KVM_ARM_SPE) we were able to return a
> > value of 0 to all reads of the SPE registers - as we can no longer
> > do this there isn't a mechanism to prevent the guest from using
> > SPE - thus I'm keen for feedback on the best way of resolving
> > this.
> 
> Surely there is a way to conditionally trap SPE registers, right? You
> should still be able to do this if SPE is not configured for a given
> guest (as we do for other feature such as PtrAuth).
> 
> > It appears necessary to pin the entire guest memory in order to
> > provide guest SPE access - otherwise it is possible for the guest
> > to receive Stage-2 faults.
> 
> Really? How can the guest receive a stage-2 fault? This doesn't fit
> what I understand of the ARMv8 exception model. Or do you mean a SPE
> interrupt describing a S2 fault?
> 
> And this is not just pinning the memory either. You have to ensure that
> all S2 page tables are created ahead of SPE being able to DMA to guest
> memory. This may have some impacts on the THP code...
> 
> I'll have a look at the actual series ASAP (but that's not very soon).

I found some time to go through the series, and there is clearly a lot
of work left to do:

- There so nothing here to handle memory pinning whatsoever. If it
  works, it is only thanks to some side effect.

- The missing trapping is deeply worrying. Given that this is an
  optional feature, you cannot just let the guest do whatever it wants
  in an uncontrolled manner.

- The interrupt handling is busted. You mix concepts picked from both
  the PMU and the timer code, while the SPE device doesn't behave like
  any of these two (it is neither a fully emulated device, nor a
  device that is exclusively owned by a guest at any given time).

I expect some level of discussion on the list including at least Will
and myself before you respin this.

	M.

-- 
Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny.