[PATCH] KVM: arm64: VHE: Initialize PMSCR_EL1

[Marc Zyngier]

On Thu, 07 Nov 2024 12:07:40 +0000,
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei at arm.com> wrote:
> 
> Do you think this is an improvement (looks like a pretty big diff, but it's
> mostly refactoring, the actual change is in kvm_arm_init_debug()):
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c
> index ce8886122ed3..21b260b02216 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/debug.c
> @@ -65,12 +65,30 @@ static void restore_guest_debug_regs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>                 *vcpu_cpsr(vcpu) &= ~DBG_SPSR_SS;
>  }
>  
> +static bool cpu_has_spe(void)
> +{
> +       return cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field(read_sysreg(id_aa64dfr0_el1),
> +                                                   ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_PMSVer);
> +}
> +
> +static bool cpu_has_trbe(void)
> +{
> +       return cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field(read_sysreg(id_aa64dfr0_el1),
> +                                                   ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_TraceBuffer);
> +}
> +
>  /**
>   * kvm_arm_init_debug - grab what we need for debug
>   *
> - * Currently the sole task of this function is to retrieve the initial
> - * value of mdcr_el2 so we can preserve MDCR_EL2.HPMN which has
> - * presumably been set-up by some knowledgeable bootcode.
> + * This function does two things:
> + *
> + * 1. Retrieve the initial value of mdcr_el2 so we can preserve
> + * MDCR_EL2.HPMN which has presumably been set-up by some knowledgeable
> + * bootcode.
> + *
> + * 2. Clear PMSCR_EL1.E1SPE and E0SPE when the host is running at EL2. The
> + * bits reset to an unknown value, and clearing them prevents the host from
> + * accidently profiling a virtual machine.
>   *
>   * It is called once per-cpu during CPU hyp initialisation.
>   */
> @@ -78,6 +96,9 @@ static void restore_guest_debug_regs(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  void kvm_arm_init_debug(void)
>  {
>         __this_cpu_write(mdcr_el2, kvm_call_hyp_ret(__kvm_get_mdcr_el2));
> +
> +       if (is_kernel_in_hyp_mode() && cpu_has_spe())
> +               write_sysreg_el1(0, SYS_PMSCR);
>  }
>  
>  /**
> @@ -317,23 +338,20 @@ void kvm_arm_clear_debug(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  
>  void kvm_arch_vcpu_load_debug_state_flags(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  {
> -       u64 dfr0;
> -
>         /* For VHE, there is nothing to do */
>         if (has_vhe())
>                 return;
>  
> -       dfr0 = read_sysreg(id_aa64dfr0_el1);
>         /*
>          * If SPE is present on this CPU and is available at current EL,
>          * we may need to check if the host state needs to be saved.
>          */
> -       if (cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field(dfr0, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_PMSVer_SHIFT) &&
> +       if (cpu_has_spe() &&
>             !(read_sysreg_s(SYS_PMBIDR_EL1) & BIT(PMBIDR_EL1_P_SHIFT)))
>                 vcpu_set_flag(vcpu, DEBUG_STATE_SAVE_SPE);
>  
>         /* Check if we have TRBE implemented and available at the host */
> -       if (cpuid_feature_extract_unsigned_field(dfr0, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_TraceBuffer_SHIFT) &&
> +       if (cpu_has_trbe() &&
>             !(read_sysreg_s(SYS_TRBIDR_EL1) & TRBIDR_EL1_P))
>                 vcpu_set_flag(vcpu, DEBUG_STATE_SAVE_TRBE);
>  }

Sure, that's a reasonable start. Oliver is busy putting a stick of
dynamite in this code, but I'm sure he could work with something like
this.

> Two questions:
> 
> 1. As far as I can tell, KVM uses at least two functions for extracting a
> field from an ID register: the ones above, which take a _SHIFT argument for
> the field position, and the SYS_FIELD_GET ones, which take a mask argument.
> Are they equivalent, is one is preferred over the other, or they have
> different use cases?

The least verbose, the better. As for their equivalence, you should
check that.

> 2. has_vhe() vs is_kernel_in_hyp_mode(). I couldn't find any documentation
> when to use one over the other. Looks to me like has_vhe() is faster
> because uses cpu caps.

They don't mean the same thing. One is a capability, the other tells
you where you run.

> And one interesting find: when booting v6.12-rc6 (no patches on top) with
> kvm-arm.mode=protected, and when profiling the kvmtool process, I see
> unexpected buffer faults:
> 
> [    0.762373] kvm [1]: Protected hVHE mode initialized successfully
> ..
> [   84.716647] arm_spe_pmu: Unexpected buffer fault on CPU 3 [PMBSR=0x0000000094020007, PMBPTR=0xffff800088804738, PMBLIMITR=0xffff800088a03001]
> 
> Same messages with the patches applied.

No idea. I don't think anyone ever tried SPE with pKVM, and I don't
have an SPE-capable box at hand.

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.