Re: [PATCH v8 16/20] KVM: ARM64: Add access handler for PMUSERENR register
On 2016/1/7 18:14, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 22/12/15 08:08, Shannon Zhao wrote: >> > From: Shannon Zhao>> > >> > This register resets as unknown in 64bit mode while it resets as zero >> > in 32bit mode. Here we choose to reset it as zero for consistency. >> > >> > PMUSERENR_EL0 holds some bits which decide whether PMU registers can be >> > accessed from EL0. Add some check helpers to handle the access from EL0. >> > >> > When these bits are zero, only reading PMUSERENR will trap to EL2 and >> > writing PMUSERENR or reading/writing other PMU registers will trap to >> > EL1 other than EL2 when HCR.TGE==0. To current KVM configuration >> > (HCR.TGE==0) there is no way to get these traps. Here we write 0xf to >> > physical PMUSERENR register on VM entry, so that it will trap PMU access >> > from EL0 to EL2. Within the register access handler we check the real >> > value of guest PMUSERENR register to decide whether this access is >> > allowed. If not allowed, forward this trap to EL1. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao >> > --- >> > arch/arm64/include/asm/pmu.h | 9 >> > arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c | 3 ++ >> > arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c| 122 >> > +-- >> > 3 files changed, 129 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pmu.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pmu.h >> > index 2588f9c..1238ade 100644 >> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pmu.h >> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pmu.h >> > @@ -67,4 +67,13 @@ >> > #define ARMV8_EXCLUDE_EL0 (1 << 30) >> > #define ARMV8_INCLUDE_EL2 (1 << 27) >> > >> > +/* >> > + * PMUSERENR: user enable reg >> > + */ >> > +#define ARMV8_USERENR_MASK0xf /* Mask for writable >> > bits */ >> > +#define ARMV8_USERENR_EN (1 << 0) /* PMU regs can be accessed at EL0 */ >> > +#define ARMV8_USERENR_SW (1 << 1) /* PMSWINC can be written at EL0 */ >> > +#define ARMV8_USERENR_CR (1 << 2) /* Cycle counter can be read at EL0 */ >> > +#define ARMV8_USERENR_ER (1 << 3) /* Event counter can be read at EL0 */ >> > + >> > #endif /* __ASM_PMU_H */ >> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c >> > index ca8f5a5..a85375f 100644 >> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c >> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c >> > @@ -37,6 +37,8 @@ static void __hyp_text __activate_traps(struct kvm_vcpu >> > *vcpu) >> >/* Trap on AArch32 cp15 c15 accesses (EL1 or EL0) */ >> >write_sysreg(1 << 15, hstr_el2); >> >write_sysreg(CPTR_EL2_TTA | CPTR_EL2_TFP, cptr_el2); >> > + /* Make sure we trap PMU access from EL0 to EL2 */ >> > + write_sysreg(15, pmuserenr_el0); > Please use the ARMV8_USERENR_* constants here instead of a magic number > (since you went through the hassle of defining them!). > Ok. >> >write_sysreg(vcpu->arch.mdcr_el2, mdcr_el2); >> > } >> > >> > @@ -45,6 +47,7 @@ static void __hyp_text __deactivate_traps(struct >> > kvm_vcpu *vcpu) >> >write_sysreg(HCR_RW, hcr_el2); >> >write_sysreg(0, hstr_el2); >> >write_sysreg(read_sysreg(mdcr_el2) & MDCR_EL2_HPMN_MASK, mdcr_el2); >> > + write_sysreg(0, pmuserenr_el0); >> >write_sysreg(0, cptr_el2); >> > } >> > >> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c >> > index 04281f1..ac0cbf8 100644 >> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c >> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c >> > @@ -453,11 +453,47 @@ static void reset_pmcr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const >> > struct sys_reg_desc *r) >> >vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, r->reg) = val; >> > } >> > >> > +static inline bool pmu_access_el0_disabled(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > Please drop all the inline attributes. The compiler knows its stuff well > enough to do it automagically, and this is hardly a fast path... > >> > +{ >> > + u64 reg = vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMUSERENR_EL0); >> > + >> > + return !((reg & ARMV8_USERENR_EN) || vcpu_mode_priv(vcpu)); >> > +} >> > + >> > +static inline bool pmu_write_swinc_el0_disabled(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) >> > +{ >> > + u64 reg = vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMUSERENR_EL0); >> > + >> > + return !((reg & (ARMV8_USERENR_SW | ARMV8_USERENR_EN)) >> > + || vcpu_mode_priv(vcpu)); >> > +} >> > + >> > +static inline bool pmu_access_cycle_counter_el0_disabled(struct kvm_vcpu >> > *vcpu) >> > +{ >> > + u64 reg = vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMUSERENR_EL0); >> > + >> > + return !((reg & (ARMV8_USERENR_CR | ARMV8_USERENR_EN)) >> > + || vcpu_mode_priv(vcpu)); >> > +} >> > + >> > +static inline bool pmu_access_event_counter_el0_disabled(struct kvm_vcpu >> > *vcpu) >> > +{ >> > + u64 reg = vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMUSERENR_EL0); >> > + >> > + return !((reg & (ARMV8_USERENR_ER | ARMV8_USERENR_EN)) >> > + || vcpu_mode_priv(vcpu)); >> > +} >> > + >> > static bool access_pmcr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct sys_reg_params *p, >> >const struct sys_reg_desc *r) >> > { >> >u64 val; >> > >> > + if
Re: [PATCH v8 16/20] KVM: ARM64: Add access handler for PMUSERENR register
On 22/12/15 08:08, Shannon Zhao wrote: > From: Shannon Zhao> > This register resets as unknown in 64bit mode while it resets as zero > in 32bit mode. Here we choose to reset it as zero for consistency. > > PMUSERENR_EL0 holds some bits which decide whether PMU registers can be > accessed from EL0. Add some check helpers to handle the access from EL0. > > When these bits are zero, only reading PMUSERENR will trap to EL2 and > writing PMUSERENR or reading/writing other PMU registers will trap to > EL1 other than EL2 when HCR.TGE==0. To current KVM configuration > (HCR.TGE==0) there is no way to get these traps. Here we write 0xf to > physical PMUSERENR register on VM entry, so that it will trap PMU access > from EL0 to EL2. Within the register access handler we check the real > value of guest PMUSERENR register to decide whether this access is > allowed. If not allowed, forward this trap to EL1. > > Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao > --- > arch/arm64/include/asm/pmu.h | 9 > arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c | 3 ++ > arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c| 122 > +-- > 3 files changed, 129 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pmu.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pmu.h > index 2588f9c..1238ade 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pmu.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pmu.h > @@ -67,4 +67,13 @@ > #define ARMV8_EXCLUDE_EL0 (1 << 30) > #define ARMV8_INCLUDE_EL2 (1 << 27) > > +/* > + * PMUSERENR: user enable reg > + */ > +#define ARMV8_USERENR_MASK 0xf /* Mask for writable bits */ > +#define ARMV8_USERENR_EN (1 << 0) /* PMU regs can be accessed at EL0 */ > +#define ARMV8_USERENR_SW (1 << 1) /* PMSWINC can be written at EL0 */ > +#define ARMV8_USERENR_CR (1 << 2) /* Cycle counter can be read at EL0 */ > +#define ARMV8_USERENR_ER (1 << 3) /* Event counter can be read at EL0 */ > + > #endif /* __ASM_PMU_H */ > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c > index ca8f5a5..a85375f 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c > @@ -37,6 +37,8 @@ static void __hyp_text __activate_traps(struct kvm_vcpu > *vcpu) > /* Trap on AArch32 cp15 c15 accesses (EL1 or EL0) */ > write_sysreg(1 << 15, hstr_el2); > write_sysreg(CPTR_EL2_TTA | CPTR_EL2_TFP, cptr_el2); > + /* Make sure we trap PMU access from EL0 to EL2 */ > + write_sysreg(15, pmuserenr_el0); Please use the ARMV8_USERENR_* constants here instead of a magic number (since you went through the hassle of defining them!). > write_sysreg(vcpu->arch.mdcr_el2, mdcr_el2); > } > > @@ -45,6 +47,7 @@ static void __hyp_text __deactivate_traps(struct kvm_vcpu > *vcpu) > write_sysreg(HCR_RW, hcr_el2); > write_sysreg(0, hstr_el2); > write_sysreg(read_sysreg(mdcr_el2) & MDCR_EL2_HPMN_MASK, mdcr_el2); > + write_sysreg(0, pmuserenr_el0); > write_sysreg(0, cptr_el2); > } > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c > index 04281f1..ac0cbf8 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c > @@ -453,11 +453,47 @@ static void reset_pmcr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const > struct sys_reg_desc *r) > vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, r->reg) = val; > } > > +static inline bool pmu_access_el0_disabled(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) Please drop all the inline attributes. The compiler knows its stuff well enough to do it automagically, and this is hardly a fast path... > +{ > + u64 reg = vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMUSERENR_EL0); > + > + return !((reg & ARMV8_USERENR_EN) || vcpu_mode_priv(vcpu)); > +} > + > +static inline bool pmu_write_swinc_el0_disabled(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > +{ > + u64 reg = vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMUSERENR_EL0); > + > + return !((reg & (ARMV8_USERENR_SW | ARMV8_USERENR_EN)) > + || vcpu_mode_priv(vcpu)); > +} > + > +static inline bool pmu_access_cycle_counter_el0_disabled(struct kvm_vcpu > *vcpu) > +{ > + u64 reg = vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMUSERENR_EL0); > + > + return !((reg & (ARMV8_USERENR_CR | ARMV8_USERENR_EN)) > + || vcpu_mode_priv(vcpu)); > +} > + > +static inline bool pmu_access_event_counter_el0_disabled(struct kvm_vcpu > *vcpu) > +{ > + u64 reg = vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMUSERENR_EL0); > + > + return !((reg & (ARMV8_USERENR_ER | ARMV8_USERENR_EN)) > + || vcpu_mode_priv(vcpu)); > +} > + > static bool access_pmcr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct sys_reg_params *p, > const struct sys_reg_desc *r) > { > u64 val; > > + if (pmu_access_el0_disabled(vcpu)) { > + kvm_forward_trap_to_el1(vcpu); > + return true; > + } So with the patch I posted earlier (http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg472693.html), all the instances similar to that code can be rewritten as + if (pmu_access_el0_disabled(vcpu)) + return