Hi Raghu,
On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 12:30:25AM +0000, 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).
typo: userspace
> 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;
Can't we just get at this through the arm_pmu instance rather than
copying it into kvm_arch?
> 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;
> + }
Hmm, I'm not so sure about returning an error here. ABI has it that
userspace can write any value to PMCR_EL0 successfully. Can we just
ignore writes that attempt to set PMCR_EL0.N to something higher than
supported by hardware? Our general stance should be that system register
fields responsible for feature identification are immutable after the VM
has started.
--
Thanks,
Oliver
