Re: [PATCH v5 08/12] KVM: arm64: PMU: Allow userspace to limit PMCR_EL0.N for the guest

[Shaoqin Huang]

Hi Raghavendra,

On 8/17/23 08:30, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> From: Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> KVM does not yet support userspace modifying PMCR_EL0.N (With
> the previous patch, KVM ignores what is written by upserspace).
> Add support userspace limiting PMCR_EL0.N.
>
> Disallow userspace to set PMCR_EL0.N to a value that is greater
> than the host value (KVM_SET_ONE_REG will fail), as KVM doesn't
> support more event counters than the host HW implements.
> Although this is an ABI change, this change only affects
> userspace setting PMCR_EL0.N to a larger value than the host.
> As accesses to unadvertised event counters indices is CONSTRAINED
> UNPREDICTABLE behavior, and PMCR_EL0.N was reset to the host value
> on every vCPU reset before this series, I can't think of any
> use case where a user space would do that.
>
> Also, 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>   arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h |  3 ++
>   arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c         |  1 +
>   arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c         | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>   3 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index 0f2dbbe8f6a7e..c15ec365283d1 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -259,6 +259,9 @@ struct kvm_arch {
>   	/* PMCR_EL0.N value for the guest */
>   	u8 pmcr_n;
>   
> +	/* Limit value of PMCR_EL0.N for the guest */
> +	u8 pmcr_n_limit;
> +
>   	/* Hypercall features firmware registers' descriptor */
>   	struct kvm_smccc_features smccc_feat;
>   	struct maple_tree smccc_filter;
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
> index ce7de6bbdc967..39ad56a71ad20 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/pmu-emul.c
> @@ -896,6 +896,7 @@ int kvm_arm_set_vm_pmu(struct kvm *kvm, struct arm_pmu *arm_pmu)
>   	 * while the latter does not.
>   	 */
>   	kvm->arch.pmcr_n = arm_pmu->num_events - 1;
> +	kvm->arch.pmcr_n_limit = arm_pmu->num_events - 1;
>   
>   	return 0;
>   }
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> index 2075901356c5b..c01d62afa7db4 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
> @@ -1086,6 +1086,51 @@ 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;
> +	int ret = 0;
> +
> +	new_n = FIELD_GET(ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_N, val);
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&kvm->arch.config_lock);
> +	if (unlikely(new_n != kvm->arch.pmcr_n)) {
> +		/*
> +		 * The vCPU can't have more counters than the PMU
> +		 * hardware implements.
> +		 */
> +		if (new_n <= kvm->arch.pmcr_n_limit)
> +			kvm->arch.pmcr_n = new_n;
> +		else
> +			ret = -EINVAL;
> +	}

Since we have set the default value of pmcr_n, if we want to set a new 
pmcr_n, shouldn't it be a different value?

So how about change the checking to:

if (likely(new_n <= kvm->arch.pmcr_n_limit)
	kvm->arch.pmcr_n = new_n;
else
	ret = -EINVAL;

what do you think?

> +	mutex_unlock(&kvm->arch.config_lock);
> +	if (ret)
> +		return ret;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * 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);
> +	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;
> +}
> +
>   /* Silly macro to expand the DBG{BCR,BVR,WVR,WCR}n_EL1 registers in one go */
>   #define DBG_BCR_BVR_WCR_WVR_EL1(n)					\
>   	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_DBGBVRn_EL1(n)),					\
> @@ -2147,8 +2192,8 @@ static const struct sys_reg_desc sys_reg_descs[] = {
>   	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_CTR_EL0), access_ctr },
>   	{ SYS_DESC(SYS_SVCR), undef_access },
>   
> -	{ PMU_SYS_REG(PMCR_EL0), .access = access_pmcr,
> -	  .reset = reset_pmcr, .reg = PMCR_EL0, .get_user = get_pmcr },
> +	{ PMU_SYS_REG(PMCR_EL0), .access = access_pmcr, .reset = reset_pmcr,
> +	  .reg = PMCR_EL0, .get_user = get_pmcr, .set_user = set_pmcr },

A little confusing, since the PMU_SYS_REG() defines the default 
visibility which is pmu_visibility can return REG_HIDDEN, the set_user 
to pmcr will be blocked, how can it being set?

Maybe I lose some details.

Thanks,
Shaoqin

>   	{ PMU_SYS_REG(PMCNTENSET_EL0),
>   	  .access = access_pmcnten, .reg = PMCNTENSET_EL0 },
>   	{ PMU_SYS_REG(PMCNTENCLR_EL0),

--
Shaoqin