On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 05:29:18PM +0100, Christoffer Dall wrote: > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 02:56:50PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c > > index 83037cd..3b7cfbd 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/switch.c > > @@ -85,7 +85,13 @@ static void __hyp_text __activate_traps(struct kvm_vcpu > > *vcpu) > > write_sysreg(val, hcr_el2); > > /* Trap on AArch32 cp15 c15 accesses (EL1 or EL0) */ > > write_sysreg(1 << 15, hstr_el2); > > - /* Make sure we trap PMU access from EL0 to EL2 */ > > + /* > > + * Make sure we trap PMU access from EL0 to EL2. Also sanitize > > + * PMSELR_EL0 to make sure it never contains the cycle > > + * counter, which could make a PMXEVCNTR_EL0 access UNDEF. > > + */ > > + if (vcpu->arch.mdcr_el2 & MDCR_EL2_HPMN_MASK) > > + write_sysreg(0, pmselr_el0); > > I'm a bit confused about how we use the HPMN field. This value is > always set to the full number of counters available on the system and > never modified by the guest, right? So this is in essence a check that > says 'do you have any performance counters, then make sure accesses > don't undef to el1 instead of trapping to el2', but then my question is, > why not just set pmselr_el0 to zero unconditionally, because in the case > where (vcpu->arch.mdcr_el2 & MDCR_EL2_HPMN_MASK) == 0, it means we have > no counters, which we'll have exposed to the guest anyhow, and we should > undef at el1 in the guest, or did I get this completely wrong (like > everything else today)?
I think Marc and I came to the same conclusion a few minutes ago. The check you might want is "Have I instantiated a virtual PMU for this device?", but that's probably a micro-optimisation. Will _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list [email protected] https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
