Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:5 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:5;
Date:   Mon, 11 Dec 2023 15:43:24 -0800
In-Reply-To: <CALMp9eSp_9J9t3ByfHfnirXf=uxvWVWVtLWO5KPoO0nDFJ-gtw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20231202000417.922113-1-seanjc@google.com> <20231202000417.922113-11-seanjc@google.com>
 <b45efe2f-1b99-4596-b33f-d491726ed34d@linux.intel.com> <CALMp9eSp_9J9t3ByfHfnirXf=uxvWVWVtLWO5KPoO0nDFJ-gtw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ZXeenJ6DAugGCaSN@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 10/28] KVM: x86/pmu: Explicitly check for RDPMC of
 unsupported Intel PMC types
From:   Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To:     Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Cc:     Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>,
        Jinrong Liang <cloudliang@tencent.com>,
        Aaron Lewis <aaronlewis@google.com>,
        Like Xu <likexu@tencent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Dec 11, 2023, Jim Mattson wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 10, 2023 at 10:26=E2=80=AFPM Mi, Dapeng <dapeng1.mi@linux.int=
el.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 12/2/2023 8:03 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > Explicitly check for attempts to read unsupported PMC types instead o=
f
> > > 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 docume=
nt
> > > what is going on.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
> > > ---
> > >   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_inte=
l.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, n=
ot 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_PERFC=
TR0)
> > >
> > >   static void reprogram_fixed_counters(struct kvm_pmu *pmu, u64 data)
> > > @@ -82,9 +85,13 @@ static struct kvm_pmc *intel_rdpmc_ecx_to_pmc(stru=
ct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
> > >       /*
> > >        * Fixed PMCs are supported on all architectural PMUs.  Note, K=
VM only
> > >        * emulates fixed PMCs for PMU v2+, but the flag itself is stil=
l 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/unsuppor=
ted.
> > >        */
> > > -     idx &=3D ~INTEL_RDPMC_FIXED;
> > > +     if (idx & INTEL_RDPMC_TYPE_MASK & ~INTEL_RDPMC_FIXED)
>=20
> You know how I hate to be pedantic (ROFL), but the SDM only says:
>=20
> If the processor does support architectural performance monitoring
> (CPUID.0AH:EAX[7:0] =E2=89=A0 0), ECX[31:16] specifies type of PMC while
> ECX[15:0] specifies the index of the PMC to be read within that type.
>=20
> It does not say that the types are bitwise-exclusive.
>=20
> Yes, the types defined thus far are bitwise-exclusive, but who knows
> what tomorrow may bring?

The goal isn't to make the types exclusive, the goal is to reject types tha=
t
aren't supported by KVM.  The above accomplishes that, no?  I don't see how=
 KVM
could get a false negative or false positive, the above allows exactly FIXE=
D and
"none" types.  Or are you objecting to the comment?