Hi Alex,
On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 1:52 AM Alexandru Elisei
<alexandru.elisei@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Dec 04, 2021 at 09:39:59AM -0800, Reiji Watanabe wrote:
> > Hi Eric,
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 4, 2021 at 6:14 AM Eric Auger <eauger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Reiji,
> > >
> > > On 12/4/21 2:04 AM, Reiji Watanabe wrote:
> > > > Hi Eric,
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 2, 2021 at 2:57 AM Eric Auger <eauger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi Reiji,
> > > >>
> > > >> On 11/30/21 6:32 AM, Reiji Watanabe wrote:
> > > >>> Hi Eric,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 12:30 PM Eric Auger <eauger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Hi Reiji,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On 11/17/21 7:43 AM, Reiji Watanabe wrote:
> > > >>>>> When ID_AA64DFR0_EL1.PMUVER or ID_DFR0_EL1.PERFMON is 0xf, which
> > > >>>>> means IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED PMU supported, KVM unconditionally
> > > >>>>> expose the value for the guest as it is. Since KVM doesn't support
> > > >>>>> IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED PMU for the guest, in that case KVM should
> > > >>>>> exopse 0x0 (PMU is not implemented) instead.
> > > >>>> s/exopse/expose
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Change cpuid_feature_cap_perfmon_field() to update the field value
> > > >>>>> to 0x0 when it is 0xf.
> > > >>>> is it wrong to expose the guest with a Perfmon value of 0xF? Then the
> > > >>>> guest should not use it as a PMUv3?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> is it wrong to expose the guest with a Perfmon value of 0xF? Then the
> > > >>>> guest should not use it as a PMUv3?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> For the value 0xf in ID_AA64DFR0_EL1.PMUVER and ID_DFR0_EL1.PERFMON,
> > > >>> Arm ARM says:
> > > >>> "IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED form of performance monitors supported,
> > > >>> PMUv3 not supported."
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Since the PMU that KVM supports for guests is PMUv3, 0xf shouldn't
> > > >>> be exposed to guests (And this patch series doesn't allow userspace
> > > >>> to set the fields to 0xf for guests).
> > > >> What I don't get is why this isn't detected before (in kvm_reset_vcpu).
> > > >> if the VCPU was initialized with KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3 can we honor this
> > > >> init request if the host pmu is implementation defined?
> > > >
> > > > KVM_ARM_VCPU_INIT with KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3 will fail in
> > > > kvm_reset_vcpu() if the host PMU is implementation defined.
> > >
> > > OK. This was not obvsious to me.
> > >
> > > if (kvm_vcpu_has_pmu(vcpu) && !kvm_arm_support_pmu_v3()) {
> > > ret = -EINVAL;
> > > goto out;
> > > }
> > >
> > > kvm_perf_init
> > > + if (perf_num_counters() > 0)
> > > + static_branch_enable(&kvm_arm_pmu_available);
> > >
> > > But I believe you ;-), sorry for the noise
> >
> > Thank you for the review !
> >
> > I didn't find the code above in v5.16-rc3, which is the base code of
> > this series. So, I'm not sure where the code came from (any kvmarm
> > repository branch ??).
> >
> > What I see in v5.16-rc3 is:
> > ----
> > int kvm_perf_init(void)
> > {
> > return perf_register_guest_info_callbacks(&kvm_guest_cbs);
> > }
> >
> > void kvm_host_pmu_init(struct arm_pmu *pmu)
> > {
> > if (pmu->pmuver != 0 && pmu->pmuver != ID_AA64DFR0_PMUVER_IMP_DEF &&
> > !kvm_arm_support_pmu_v3() && !is_protected_kvm_enabled())
> > static_branch_enable(&kvm_arm_pmu_available);
> > }
> > ----
> >
> > And I don't find any other code that enables kvm_arm_pmu_available.
>
> The code was recently changed (in v5.15 I think), I think Eric is looking
> at an older version.
>
> >
> > Looking at the KVM's PMUV3 support code for guests in v5.16-rc3,
> > if KVM allows userspace to configure KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3 even with
> > ID_AA64DFR0_PMUVER_IMP_DEF on the host (, which I don't think it does),
> > I think we should fix that to not allow that.
>
> I recently started looking into that too. If there's only one PMU, then the
> guest won't see the value IMP DEF for PMUVer (userspace cannot set the PMU
> feature because !kvm_arm_support_pmu_v3()).
>
> On heterogeneous systems with multiple PMUs, it gets complicated. I don't
> have any such hardware, but what I think will happen is that KVM will
> enable the static branch if there is at least one PMU with
> PMUVer != IMP_DEF, even if there are other PMUs with PMUVer = IMP_DEF. But
> read_sanitised_ftr_reg() will always return 0 for the
> PMUVer field because the field is defined as FTR_EXACT with a safe value of
> 0 in cpufeature.c. So the guest ends up seeing PMUVer = 0.
>
> I'm not sure if this is the case because I'm not familiar with the cpu
> features code, but I planning to investigate further.
Thank you for the comment !
Yes, it looks like that KVM will enable the static branch if there
is at least one PMU with PMUVer != 0 && PMUVer != IMP_DEF.
(then, yes, AA64DFR0.PMUVER will be 0 even for a vCPU that
KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3 is successfully configured for in the case)
I will look into it some more.
Thanks,
Reiji
