On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 10:26 PM Mi, Dapeng <dapeng1.mi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 12/2/2023 8:03 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Explicitly check for attempts to read unsupported PMC types instead of
> > letting the bounds check fail. Functionally, letting the check fail is
> > ok, but it's unnecessarily subtle and does a poor job of documenting the
> > architectural behavior that KVM is emulating.
> >
> > Opportunistically add macros for the type vs. index to further document
> > what is going on.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c | 11 +++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
> > index 644de27bd48a..bd4f4bdf5419 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/pmu_intel.c
> > @@ -23,6 +23,9 @@
> > /* Perf's "BASE" is wildly misleading, this is a single-bit flag, not a base. */
> > #define INTEL_RDPMC_FIXED INTEL_PMC_FIXED_RDPMC_BASE
> >
> > +#define INTEL_RDPMC_TYPE_MASK GENMASK(31, 16)
> > +#define INTEL_RDPMC_INDEX_MASK GENMASK(15, 0)
> > +
> > #define MSR_PMC_FULL_WIDTH_BIT (MSR_IA32_PMC0 - MSR_IA32_PERFCTR0)
> >
> > static void reprogram_fixed_counters(struct kvm_pmu *pmu, u64 data)
> > @@ -82,9 +85,13 @@ static struct kvm_pmc *intel_rdpmc_ecx_to_pmc(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > /*
> > * Fixed PMCs are supported on all architectural PMUs. Note, KVM only
> > * emulates fixed PMCs for PMU v2+, but the flag itself is still valid,
> > - * i.e. let RDPMC fail due to accessing a non-existent counter.
> > + * i.e. let RDPMC fail due to accessing a non-existent counter. Reject
> > + * attempts to read all other types, which are unknown/unsupported.
> > */
> > - idx &= ~INTEL_RDPMC_FIXED;
> > + if (idx & INTEL_RDPMC_TYPE_MASK & ~INTEL_RDPMC_FIXED)
You know how I hate to be pedantic (ROFL), but the SDM only says:
If the processor does support architectural performance monitoring
(CPUID.0AH:EAX[7:0] ≠ 0), ECX[31:16] specifies type of PMC while
ECX[15:0] specifies the index of the PMC to be read within that type.
It does not say that the types are bitwise-exclusive.
Yes, the types defined thus far are bitwise-exclusive, but who knows
what tomorrow may bring?
> > + return NULL;
> > +
> > + idx &= INTEL_RDPMC_INDEX_MASK;
> > if (fixed) {
> > counters = pmu->fixed_counters;
> > num_counters = pmu->nr_arch_fixed_counters;
> Reviewed-by: Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
