On Sat, 08 Apr 2023 04:47:57 +0100,
Reiji Watanabe <reijiw@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> This series will fix bugs in KVM's handling of PMUSERENR_EL0.
>
> With PMU access support from EL0 [1], the perf subsystem would
> set CR and ER bits of PMUSERENR_EL0 as needed to allow EL0 to have
> a direct access to PMU counters. However, KVM appears to assume
> that the register value is always zero for the host EL0, and has
> the following two problems in handling the register.
>
> [A] The host EL0 might lose the direct access to PMU counters, as
> KVM always clears PMUSERENR_EL0 before returning to userspace.
>
> [B] With VHE, the guest EL0 access to PMU counters might be trapped
> to EL1 instead of to EL2 (even when PMUSERENR_EL0 for the guest
> indicates that the guest EL0 has an access to the counters).
> This is because, with VHE, KVM sets ER, CR, SW and EN bits of
> PMUSERENR_EL0 to 1 on vcpu_load() to ensure to trap PMU access
> from the guset EL0 to EL2, but those bits might be cleared by
> the perf subsystem after vcpu_load() (when PMU counters are
> programmed for the vPMU emulation).
>
> Patch-1 will fix [A], and Patch-2 will fix [B] respectively.
> The series is based on v6.3-rc5.
>
> v2:
> - Save the PMUSERENR_EL0 for the host in the sysreg array of
> kvm_host_data. [Marc]
> - Don't let armv8pmu_start() overwrite PMUSERENR if the vCPU
> is loaded, instead have KVM update the saved shadow register
> value for the host. [Marc, Mark]
This looks much better to me. If Mark is OK with it, I'm happy to take
it in 6.4.
Speaking of which, this will clash with the queued move of the PMUv3
code into drivers/perf, and probably break on 32bit. I can either take
a branch shared with arm64 (009d6dc87a56 ("ARM: perf: Allow the use of
the PMUv3 driver on 32bit ARM")), or wait until -rc1.
Will, what do you prefer?
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
