Hi Babu,
On 1/2/2024 12:00 PM, Moger, Babu wrote:
> On 12/14/23 19:24, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> On 12/12/2023 10:02 AM, Babu Moger wrote:
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c
>>> index f136ac046851..30bf919edfda 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c
>>> @@ -813,6 +813,12 @@ int __init rdt_get_mon_l3_config(struct rdt_resource *r)
>>> return ret;
>>>
>>> if (rdt_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_BMEC)) {
>>> + u32 eax, ebx, ecx, edx;
>>> +
>>> + /* Detect list of bandwidth sources that can be tracked */
>>> + cpuid_count(0x80000020, 3, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
>>> + hw_res->event_mask = ecx;
>>> +
>>
>> This has the same issue as I mentioned in V1. Note that this treats
>> reserved bits as valid values. I think this is a risky thing to do. For example
>> when this code is run on future hardware the currently reserved bits may have
>> values with different meaning than what this code uses it for.
>
> Sure. Will use the mask MAX_EVT_CONFIG_BITS.
> hw_res->mbm_cfg_mask = ecx & MAX_EVT_CONFIG_BITS;
>
>>
>>> if (rdt_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_CQM_MBM_TOTAL)) {
>>> mbm_total_event.configurable = true;
>>> mbm_config_rftype_init("mbm_total_bytes_config");
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
>>> index 69a1de92384a..8a1e9fdab974 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
>>> @@ -1537,17 +1537,14 @@ static void mon_event_config_read(void *info)
>>> {
>>> struct mon_config_info *mon_info = info;
>>> unsigned int index;
>>> - u64 msrval;
>>> + u32 h;
>>>
>>> index = mon_event_config_index_get(mon_info->evtid);
>>> if (index == INVALID_CONFIG_INDEX) {
>>> pr_warn_once("Invalid event id %d\n", mon_info->evtid);
>>> return;
>>> }
>>> - rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_EVT_CFG_BASE + index, msrval);
>>> -
>>> - /* Report only the valid event configuration bits */
>>> - mon_info->mon_config = msrval & MAX_EVT_CONFIG_BITS;
>>> + rdmsr(MSR_IA32_EVT_CFG_BASE + index, mon_info->mon_config, h);
>>
>> I do not think this code needed to be changed. We do not want to treat
>> reserved bits as valid values.
>
> The logic is still the same. We don't have access to rdt_hw_resource in
> this function. So, I just moved the masking to mbm_config_show while printing.
Why do you need access to rdt_hw_resource? This comment is not about the bandwidth
events supported by the device but instead the bits used to represent these events.
This is the same issue as in rdt_get_mon_l3_config. The above change returns
reserved bits as valid while the original code ensured that only bits used for
field are returned (through the usage of MAX_EVT_CONFIG_BITS).
Reinette
