Hi Marc, On 2/19/20 9:46 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 2020-02-18 17:43, James Morse wrote: >> Hi Marc, >> >> On 16/02/2020 18:53, Marc Zyngier wrote: >>> Our PMU code is only implementing the ARMv8.1 features, so let's >>> stick to this when reporting the feature set to the guest. >> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c >>> index 682fedd7700f..06b2d0dc6c73 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c >>> @@ -1093,6 +1093,11 @@ static u64 read_id_reg(const struct kvm_vcpu >>> *vcpu, >>> FEATURE(ID_AA64ISAR1_GPA) | >>> FEATURE(ID_AA64ISAR1_GPI)); >>> break; >>> + case SYS_ID_AA64DFR0_EL1: >>> + /* Limit PMU to ARMv8.1 */ >> >> Not just limit, but upgrade too! (force?) >> This looks safe because ARMV8_PMU_EVTYPE_EVENT always includes the >> extra bits this added, and the register is always trapped. > > That's definitely not what I intended! Let me fix that one. What goes wrong? The register description says to support v8.1 you need: | Extended 16-bit PMEVTYPER<n>_EL0.evtCount field | If EL2 is implemented, the MDCR_EL2.HPMD control bit It looks like the extended PMEVTYPER would work via the emulation, and EL2 guests are totally crazy. Is the STALL_* bits in ARMv8.1-PMU the problem, ... or the extra work for NV? >> The PMU version is also readable via ID_DFR0_EL1.PerfMon, should that >> be sanitised to be the same? (I don't think we've hidden an aarch64 >> feature that also existed in aarch32 before). > > Indeed, yet another oversight. I'll fix that too. (Weird variation in the aarch32 and aarch64 ID registers isn't something I care about ... who would ever look at both?) Thanks, James _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
