On Sat, Mar 2, 2024 at 2:52 AM Andrew Jones <ajones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 05:01:25PM -0800, Atish Patra wrote:
> > The SBI v2.0 introduced a fw_read_hi function to read 64 bit firmware
> > counters for RV32 based systems.
> >
> > Add infrastructure to support that.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Anup Patel <anup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Atish Patra <atishp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/riscv/include/asm/kvm_vcpu_pmu.h | 4 ++-
> > arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_pmu.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi_pmu.c | 6 +++++
> > 3 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/kvm_vcpu_pmu.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/kvm_vcpu_pmu.h
> > index 8cb21a4f862c..e0ad27dea46c 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/kvm_vcpu_pmu.h
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/kvm_vcpu_pmu.h
> > @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ static_assert(RISCV_KVM_MAX_COUNTERS <= 64);
> >
> > struct kvm_fw_event {
> > /* Current value of the event */
> > - unsigned long value;
> > + u64 value;
> >
> > /* Event monitoring status */
> > bool started;
> > @@ -91,6 +91,8 @@ int kvm_riscv_vcpu_pmu_ctr_cfg_match(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long ctr_ba
> > struct kvm_vcpu_sbi_return *retdata);
> > int kvm_riscv_vcpu_pmu_ctr_read(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long cidx,
> > struct kvm_vcpu_sbi_return *retdata);
> > +int kvm_riscv_vcpu_pmu_fw_ctr_read_hi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long cidx,
> > + struct kvm_vcpu_sbi_return *retdata);
> > void kvm_riscv_vcpu_pmu_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> > int kvm_riscv_vcpu_pmu_setup_snapshot(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long saddr_low,
> > unsigned long saddr_high, unsigned long flags,
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_pmu.c b/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_pmu.c
> > index a02f7b981005..469bb430cf97 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_pmu.c
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_pmu.c
> > @@ -196,6 +196,29 @@ static int pmu_get_pmc_index(struct kvm_pmu *pmu, unsigned long eidx,
> > return kvm_pmu_get_programmable_pmc_index(pmu, eidx, cbase, cmask);
> > }
> >
> > +static int pmu_fw_ctr_read_hi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long cidx,
> > + unsigned long *out_val)
> > +{
> > + struct kvm_pmu *kvpmu = vcpu_to_pmu(vcpu);
> > + struct kvm_pmc *pmc;
> > + int fevent_code;
> > +
> > + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_32BIT))
>
> Let's remove the CONFIG_32BIT check in kvm_sbi_ext_pmu_handler() and then
> set *out_val to zero here and return success. Either that, or we should
> WARN or something here since it's a KVM bug to get here with
> !CONFIG_32BIT.
>
I added a warning here to prevent any sort of kvm bug. Returning
silently with out_val to zero from here may hide that.
The CONFIG_32BIT check in kvm_sbi_ext_pmu_handler also avoids
unnecessary code execution
(even though they are few) in case the lower privilege mode software
invokes the read_hi by mistake
for non RV32.
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + pmc = &kvpmu->pmc[cidx];
>
> Uh oh! We're missing range validation of cidx! And I see we're missing it
> in pmu_ctr_read() too. We need the same check we have in
> kvm_riscv_vcpu_pmu_ctr_info(). I think the other SBI functions are OK,
> but it's worth a triple check.
>
Good catch. Thanks. Fixed it.
> > +
> > + if (pmc->cinfo.type != SBI_PMU_CTR_TYPE_FW)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + fevent_code = get_event_code(pmc->event_idx);
> > + pmc->counter_val = kvpmu->fw_event[fevent_code].value;
> > +
> > + *out_val = pmc->counter_val >> 32;
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > static int pmu_ctr_read(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long cidx,
> > unsigned long *out_val)
> > {
> > @@ -702,6 +725,18 @@ int kvm_riscv_vcpu_pmu_ctr_cfg_match(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long ctr_ba
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +int kvm_riscv_vcpu_pmu_fw_ctr_read_hi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long cidx,
> > + struct kvm_vcpu_sbi_return *retdata)
> > +{
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = pmu_fw_ctr_read_hi(vcpu, cidx, &retdata->out_val);
> > + if (ret == -EINVAL)
> > + retdata->err_val = SBI_ERR_INVALID_PARAM;
> > +
> > + return 0;
>
> I see this follows the pattern we have with kvm_riscv_vcpu_pmu_ctr_read
> and pmu_ctr_read, but I wonder if we really need the
> kvm_riscv_vcpu_pmu_ctr_read() and kvm_riscv_vcpu_pmu_fw_ctr_read_hi()
> wrapper functions?
>
pmu_ctr_read is invoked from kvm_riscv_vcpu_pmu_read_hpm as well.
That's why I have a wrapper to read the counters in the SBI path.
kvm_riscv_vcpu_pmu_ctr_read
kvm_riscv_vcpu_pmu_fw_ctr_read_hi just followed the pattern.
If we refactor the firmware counter read and hpmcounter read to be
separate functions,
we won't need the wrapper though. But I am not sure if it will
actually improve the code readability.
If you think it's better that way, I will modify it.
Looking at this code, we should definitely change the
kvm_riscv_vcpu_pmu_ctr_read
to kvm_riscv_vcpu_pmu_fw_ctr_read to reflect the real purpose.
> > +}
> > +
> > int kvm_riscv_vcpu_pmu_ctr_read(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long cidx,
> > struct kvm_vcpu_sbi_return *retdata)
> > {
> > @@ -775,7 +810,7 @@ void kvm_riscv_vcpu_pmu_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > pmc->cinfo.csr = CSR_CYCLE + i;
> > } else {
> > pmc->cinfo.type = SBI_PMU_CTR_TYPE_FW;
> > - pmc->cinfo.width = BITS_PER_LONG - 1;
> > + pmc->cinfo.width = 63;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi_pmu.c b/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi_pmu.c
> > index 9f61136e4bb1..58a0e5587e2a 100644
> > --- a/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi_pmu.c
> > +++ b/arch/riscv/kvm/vcpu_sbi_pmu.c
> > @@ -64,6 +64,12 @@ static int kvm_sbi_ext_pmu_handler(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct kvm_run *run,
> > case SBI_EXT_PMU_COUNTER_FW_READ:
> > ret = kvm_riscv_vcpu_pmu_ctr_read(vcpu, cp->a0, retdata);
> > break;
> > + case SBI_EXT_PMU_COUNTER_FW_READ_HI:
> > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_32BIT))
> > + ret = kvm_riscv_vcpu_pmu_fw_ctr_read_hi(vcpu, cp->a0, retdata);
> > + else
> > + retdata->out_val = 0;
> > + break;
> > case SBI_EXT_PMU_SNAPSHOT_SET_SHMEM:
> > ret = kvm_riscv_vcpu_pmu_setup_snapshot(vcpu, cp->a0, cp->a1, cp->a2, retdata);
> > break;
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >
>
> Thanks,
> drew
--
Regards,
Atish
