[PATCH v9 0/3] KVM: selftests: aarch64: Introduce pmu_event_filter_test

[PATCH v9 0/3] KVM: selftests: aarch64: Introduce pmu_event_filter_test

[Shaoqin Huang]

The test is inspired by the pmu_event_filter_test which implemented by x86. On
the arm64 platform, there is the same ability to set the pmu_event_filter
through the KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_FILTER attribute. So add the test for arm64.

The series first create the helper function which can be used
for the vpmu related tests. Then, it implement the test.

Changelog:
----------
v8->v9:
  - Rebased to latest kvm-arm/next.

v7->v8:
  - Rebased to kvm-arm/next.
  - Deleted the GIC layout related staff.
  - Fixed the checking logic in the kvm_pmu_support_events.

v6->v7:
  - Rebased to v6.9-rc3.

v5->v6:
  - Rebased to v6.9-rc1.
  - Collect RB.
  - Add multiple filter test.

v4->v5:
  - Rebased to v6.8-rc6.
  - Refactor the helper function, make it fine-grained and easy to be used.
  - Namimg improvements.
  - Use the kvm_device_attr_set() helper.
  - Make the test descriptor array readable and clean.
  - Delete the patch which moves the pmu related helper to vpmu.h.
  - Remove the kvm_supports_pmu_event_filter() function since nobody will run
  this on a old kernel.

v3->v4:
  - Rebased to the v6.8-rc2.

v2->v3:
  - Check the pmceid in guest code instead of pmu event count since different
  hardware may have different event count result, check pmceid makes it stable
  on different platform.                        [Eric]
  - Some typo fixed and commit message improved.

v1->v2:
  - Improve the commit message.                 [Eric]
  - Fix the bug in [enable|disable]_counter.    [Raghavendra & Marc]
  - Add the check if kvm has attr KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_FILTER.
  - Add if host pmu support the test event throught pmceid0.
  - Split the test_invalid_filter() to another patch. [Eric]

Shaoqin Huang (3):
  KVM: selftests: aarch64: Add helper function for the vpmu vcpu
    creation
  KVM: selftests: aarch64: Introduce pmu_event_filter_test
  KVM: selftests: aarch64: Add invalid filter test in
    pmu_event_filter_test

 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile          |   1 +
 .../kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c       | 340 ++++++++++++++++++
 .../kvm/aarch64/vpmu_counter_access.c         |  32 +-
 .../selftests/kvm/include/aarch64/vpmu.h      |  28 ++
 4 files changed, 375 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/aarch64/vpmu.h

-- 
2.40.1

[PATCH v9 1/3] KVM: selftests: aarch64: Add helper function for the vpmu vcpu creation

[Shaoqin Huang]

Create a vcpu with vpmu would be a common requirement for the vpmu test,
so add the helper function for the vpmu vcpu creation. And use those
helper function in the vpmu_counter_access.c test.

Use this chance to delete the meaningless ASSERT about the pmuver,
because KVM does not advertise an IMP_DEF PMU to guests.

No functional changes intended.

Reviewed-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@redhat.com>
---
 .../kvm/aarch64/vpmu_counter_access.c         | 32 ++++---------------
 .../selftests/kvm/include/aarch64/vpmu.h      | 28 ++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/aarch64/vpmu.h

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_counter_access.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_counter_access.c
index d31b9f64ba14..68da44198719 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_counter_access.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/vpmu_counter_access.c
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
 #include <processor.h>
 #include <test_util.h>
 #include <vgic.h>
+#include <vpmu.h>
 #include <perf/arm_pmuv3.h>
 #include <linux/bitfield.h>
 
@@ -407,18 +408,8 @@ static void guest_code(uint64_t expected_pmcr_n)
 /* Create a VM that has one vCPU with PMUv3 configured. */
 static void create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code)
 {
-	struct kvm_vcpu_init init;
-	uint8_t pmuver, ec;
-	uint64_t dfr0, irq = 23;
-	struct kvm_device_attr irq_attr = {
-		.group = KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_CTRL,
-		.attr = KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_IRQ,
-		.addr = (uint64_t)&irq,
-	};
-	struct kvm_device_attr init_attr = {
-		.group = KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_CTRL,
-		.attr = KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_INIT,
-	};
+	uint8_t ec;
+	uint64_t irq = 23;
 
 	/* The test creates the vpmu_vm multiple times. Ensure a clean state */
 	memset(&vpmu_vm, 0, sizeof(vpmu_vm));
@@ -430,26 +421,15 @@ static void create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code)
 					guest_sync_handler);
 	}
 
-	/* Create vCPU with PMUv3 */
-	vm_ioctl(vpmu_vm.vm, KVM_ARM_PREFERRED_TARGET, &init);
-	init.features[0] |= (1 << KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3);
-	vpmu_vm.vcpu = aarch64_vcpu_add(vpmu_vm.vm, 0, &init, guest_code);
+	vpmu_vm.vcpu = vm_vcpu_add_with_vpmu(vpmu_vm.vm, 0, guest_code);
 	vcpu_init_descriptor_tables(vpmu_vm.vcpu);
 	vpmu_vm.gic_fd = vgic_v3_setup(vpmu_vm.vm, 1, 64);
 	__TEST_REQUIRE(vpmu_vm.gic_fd >= 0,
 		       "Failed to create vgic-v3, skipping");
 
-	/* Make sure that PMUv3 support is indicated in the ID register */
-	vcpu_get_reg(vpmu_vm.vcpu,
-		     KVM_ARM64_SYS_REG(SYS_ID_AA64DFR0_EL1), &dfr0);
-	pmuver = FIELD_GET(ARM64_FEATURE_MASK(ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_PMUVer), dfr0);
-	TEST_ASSERT(pmuver != ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_PMUVer_IMP_DEF &&
-		    pmuver >= ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_PMUVer_IMP,
-		    "Unexpected PMUVER (0x%x) on the vCPU with PMUv3", pmuver);
-
 	/* Initialize vPMU */
-	vcpu_ioctl(vpmu_vm.vcpu, KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR, &irq_attr);
-	vcpu_ioctl(vpmu_vm.vcpu, KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR, &init_attr);
+	vpmu_set_irq(vpmu_vm.vcpu, irq);
+	vpmu_init(vpmu_vm.vcpu);
 }
 
 static void destroy_vpmu_vm(void)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/aarch64/vpmu.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/aarch64/vpmu.h
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..5ef6cb011e41
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/include/aarch64/vpmu.h
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
+
+#include <kvm_util.h>
+
+static inline struct kvm_vcpu *vm_vcpu_add_with_vpmu(struct kvm_vm *vm,
+						     uint32_t vcpu_id,
+						     void *guest_code)
+{
+	struct kvm_vcpu_init init;
+
+	/* Create vCPU with PMUv3 */
+	vm_ioctl(vm, KVM_ARM_PREFERRED_TARGET, &init);
+	init.features[0] |= (1 << KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3);
+
+	return aarch64_vcpu_add(vm, 0, &init, guest_code);
+}
+
+static void vpmu_set_irq(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int irq)
+{
+	kvm_device_attr_set(vcpu->fd, KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_CTRL,
+			    KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_IRQ, &irq);
+}
+
+static void vpmu_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+{
+	kvm_device_attr_set(vcpu->fd, KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_CTRL,
+			    KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_INIT, NULL);
+}
-- 
2.40.1

[PATCH v9 2/3] KVM: selftests: aarch64: Introduce pmu_event_filter_test

[Shaoqin Huang]

Introduce pmu_event_filter_test for arm64 platforms. The test configures
PMUv3 for a vCPU, and sets different pmu event filters for the vCPU, and
check if the guest can see those events which user allow and can't use
those events which use deny.

This test refactor the create_vpmu_vm() and make it a wrapper for
__create_vpmu_vm(), which allows some extra init code before
KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_INIT.

And this test use the KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_FILTER attribute to set the
pmu event filter in KVM. And choose to filter two common event
branches_retired and instructions_retired, and let the guest to check if
it see the right pmceid register.

Signed-off-by: Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@redhat.com>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile          |   1 +
 .../kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c       | 303 ++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 304 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
index e78cac712229..964443e1a603 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/Makefile
@@ -152,6 +152,7 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/aarch32_id_regs
 TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/debug-exceptions
 TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/hypercalls
 TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/page_fault_test
+TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test
 TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/psci_test
 TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/set_id_regs
 TEST_GEN_PROGS_aarch64 += aarch64/smccc_filter
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..fb0fde1ed436
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c
@@ -0,0 +1,303 @@
+
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+/*
+ * pmu_event_filter_test - Test user limit pmu event for guest.
+ *
+ * Copyright (c) 2023 Red Hat, Inc.
+ *
+ * This test checks if the guest only see the limited pmu event that userspace
+ * sets, if the guest can use those events which user allow, and if the guest
+ * can't use those events which user deny.
+ * This test runs only when KVM_CAP_ARM_PMU_V3, KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_FILTER
+ * is supported on the host.
+ */
+#include <kvm_util.h>
+#include <processor.h>
+#include <vgic.h>
+#include <vpmu.h>
+#include <test_util.h>
+#include <perf/arm_pmuv3.h>
+
+struct pmu_common_event_ids {
+	uint64_t pmceid0;
+	uint64_t pmceid1;
+} max_pmce, expected_pmce;
+
+struct vpmu_vm {
+	struct kvm_vm *vm;
+	struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
+	int gic_fd;
+};
+
+static struct vpmu_vm vpmu_vm;
+
+#define FILTER_NR 10
+
+struct test_desc {
+	const char *name;
+	struct kvm_pmu_event_filter filter[FILTER_NR];
+};
+
+#define __DEFINE_FILTER(base, num, act)		\
+	((struct kvm_pmu_event_filter) {	\
+		.base_event	= base,		\
+		.nevents	= num,		\
+		.action		= act,		\
+	})
+
+#define DEFINE_FILTER(base, act) __DEFINE_FILTER(base, 1, act)
+
+static void guest_code(void)
+{
+	uint64_t pmceid0 = read_sysreg(pmceid0_el0);
+	uint64_t pmceid1 = read_sysreg(pmceid1_el0);
+
+	GUEST_ASSERT_EQ(expected_pmce.pmceid0, pmceid0);
+	GUEST_ASSERT_EQ(expected_pmce.pmceid1, pmceid1);
+
+	GUEST_DONE();
+}
+
+static void guest_get_pmceid(void)
+{
+	max_pmce.pmceid0 = read_sysreg(pmceid0_el0);
+	max_pmce.pmceid1 = read_sysreg(pmceid1_el0);
+
+	GUEST_DONE();
+}
+
+static void run_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+{
+	struct ucall uc;
+
+	while (1) {
+		vcpu_run(vcpu);
+		switch (get_ucall(vcpu, &uc)) {
+		case UCALL_DONE:
+			return;
+		case UCALL_ABORT:
+			REPORT_GUEST_ASSERT(uc);
+			break;
+		default:
+			TEST_FAIL("Unknown ucall %lu", uc.cmd);
+		}
+	}
+}
+
+static void set_pmce(struct pmu_common_event_ids *pmce, int action, int event)
+{
+	int base = 0;
+	uint64_t *pmceid = NULL;
+
+	if (event >= 0x4000) {
+		event -= 0x4000;
+		base = 32;
+	}
+
+	if (event >= 0 && event <= 0x1F) {
+		pmceid = &pmce->pmceid0;
+	} else if (event >= 0x20 && event <= 0x3F) {
+		event -= 0x20;
+		pmceid = &pmce->pmceid1;
+	} else {
+		return;
+	}
+
+	event += base;
+	if (action == KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW)
+		*pmceid |= BIT(event);
+	else
+		*pmceid &= ~BIT(event);
+}
+
+static void prepare_expected_pmce(struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *filter)
+{
+	struct pmu_common_event_ids pmce_mask = { ~0, ~0 };
+	bool first_filter = true;
+	int i;
+
+	while (filter && filter->nevents != 0) {
+		if (first_filter) {
+			if (filter->action == KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW)
+				memset(&pmce_mask, 0, sizeof(pmce_mask));
+			first_filter = false;
+		}
+
+		for (i = 0; i < filter->nevents; i++)
+			set_pmce(&pmce_mask, filter->action,
+				 filter->base_event + i);
+
+		filter++;
+	}
+
+	expected_pmce.pmceid0 = max_pmce.pmceid0 & pmce_mask.pmceid0;
+	expected_pmce.pmceid1 = max_pmce.pmceid1 & pmce_mask.pmceid1;
+}
+
+static void pmu_event_filter_init(struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *filter)
+{
+	while (filter && filter->nevents != 0) {
+		kvm_device_attr_set(vpmu_vm.vcpu->fd,
+				    KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_CTRL,
+				    KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_FILTER,
+				    filter);
+		filter++;
+	}
+}
+
+/* Create a VM that has one vCPU with PMUv3 configured. */
+static void create_vpmu_vm_with_filter(void *guest_code,
+				       struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *filter)
+{
+	uint64_t irq = 23;
+
+	/* The test creates the vpmu_vm multiple times. Ensure a clean state */
+	memset(&vpmu_vm, 0, sizeof(vpmu_vm));
+
+	vpmu_vm.vm = vm_create(1);
+	vpmu_vm.vcpu = vm_vcpu_add_with_vpmu(vpmu_vm.vm, 0, guest_code);
+	vpmu_vm.gic_fd = vgic_v3_setup(vpmu_vm.vm, 1, 64);
+	__TEST_REQUIRE(vpmu_vm.gic_fd >= 0,
+		       "Failed to create vgic-v3, skipping");
+
+	pmu_event_filter_init(filter);
+
+	/* Initialize vPMU */
+	vpmu_set_irq(vpmu_vm.vcpu, irq);
+	vpmu_init(vpmu_vm.vcpu);
+}
+
+static void create_vpmu_vm(void *guest_code)
+{
+	create_vpmu_vm_with_filter(guest_code, NULL);
+}
+
+static void destroy_vpmu_vm(void)
+{
+	close(vpmu_vm.gic_fd);
+	kvm_vm_free(vpmu_vm.vm);
+}
+
+static void run_test(struct test_desc *t)
+{
+	pr_info("Test: %s\n", t->name);
+
+	create_vpmu_vm_with_filter(guest_code, t->filter);
+	prepare_expected_pmce(t->filter);
+	sync_global_to_guest(vpmu_vm.vm, expected_pmce);
+
+	run_vcpu(vpmu_vm.vcpu);
+
+	destroy_vpmu_vm();
+}
+
+static struct test_desc tests[] = {
+	{
+		.name = "without_filter",
+		.filter = {
+			{ 0 }
+		},
+	},
+	{
+		.name = "member_allow_filter",
+		.filter = {
+			DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_SW_INCR, 0),
+			DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_INST_RETIRED, 0),
+			DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_BR_RETIRED, 0),
+			{ 0 },
+		},
+	},
+	{
+		.name = "member_deny_filter",
+		.filter = {
+			DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_SW_INCR, 1),
+			DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_INST_RETIRED, 1),
+			DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_BR_RETIRED, 1),
+			{ 0 },
+		},
+	},
+	{
+		.name = "not_member_deny_filter",
+		.filter = {
+			DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_SW_INCR, 1),
+			{ 0 },
+		},
+	},
+	{
+		.name = "not_member_allow_filter",
+		.filter = {
+			DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_SW_INCR, 0),
+			{ 0 },
+		},
+	},
+	{
+		.name = "deny_chain_filter",
+		.filter = {
+			DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_CHAIN, 1),
+			{ 0 },
+		},
+	},
+	{
+		.name = "deny_cpu_cycles_filter",
+		.filter = {
+			DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_CPU_CYCLES, 1),
+			{ 0 },
+		},
+	},
+	{
+		.name = "cancel_filter",
+		.filter = {
+			DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_CPU_CYCLES, 0),
+			DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_CPU_CYCLES, 1),
+		},
+	},
+	{
+		.name = "multiple_filter",
+		.filter = {
+			__DEFINE_FILTER(0x0, 0x10, 0),
+			__DEFINE_FILTER(0x6, 0x3, 1),
+		},
+	},
+	{ 0 }
+};
+
+static void run_tests(void)
+{
+	struct test_desc *t;
+
+	for (t = &tests[0]; t->name; t++)
+		run_test(t);
+}
+
+int used_pmu_events[] = {
+       ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_BR_RETIRED,
+       ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_INST_RETIRED,
+       ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_CHAIN,
+};
+
+static bool kvm_pmu_support_events(void)
+{
+	struct pmu_common_event_ids used_pmce = { 0, 0 };
+
+	create_vpmu_vm(guest_get_pmceid);
+
+	memset(&max_pmce, 0, sizeof(max_pmce));
+	sync_global_to_guest(vpmu_vm.vm, max_pmce);
+	run_vcpu(vpmu_vm.vcpu);
+	sync_global_from_guest(vpmu_vm.vm, max_pmce);
+	destroy_vpmu_vm();
+
+	for (int i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(used_pmu_events); i++)
+		set_pmce(&used_pmce, KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW, used_pmu_events[i]);
+
+	return ((max_pmce.pmceid0 & used_pmce.pmceid0) == used_pmce.pmceid0) &&
+	       ((max_pmce.pmceid1 & used_pmce.pmceid1) == used_pmce.pmceid1);
+}
+
+int main(void)
+{
+	TEST_REQUIRE(kvm_has_cap(KVM_CAP_ARM_PMU_V3));
+	TEST_REQUIRE(kvm_pmu_support_events());
+
+	run_tests();
+}
-- 
2.40.1

[PATCH v9 3/3] KVM: selftests: aarch64: Add invalid filter test in pmu_event_filter_test

[Shaoqin Huang]

Add the invalid filter test which sets the filter beyond the event
space and sets the invalid action to double check if the
KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_FILTER will return the expected error.

Reviewed-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@redhat.com>
---
 .../kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c       | 37 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c
index fb0fde1ed436..13b2f354c39b 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
  * This test checks if the guest only see the limited pmu event that userspace
  * sets, if the guest can use those events which user allow, and if the guest
  * can't use those events which user deny.
+ * It also checks that setting invalid filter ranges return the expected error.
  * This test runs only when KVM_CAP_ARM_PMU_V3, KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_FILTER
  * is supported on the host.
  */
@@ -178,6 +179,40 @@ static void destroy_vpmu_vm(void)
 	kvm_vm_free(vpmu_vm.vm);
 }
 
+static void test_invalid_filter(void)
+{
+	struct kvm_pmu_event_filter invalid;
+	int ret;
+
+	pr_info("Test: test_invalid_filter\n");
+
+	memset(&vpmu_vm, 0, sizeof(vpmu_vm));
+
+	vpmu_vm.vm = vm_create(1);
+	vpmu_vm.vcpu = vm_vcpu_add_with_vpmu(vpmu_vm.vm, 0, guest_code);
+	vpmu_vm.gic_fd = vgic_v3_setup(vpmu_vm.vm, 1, 64);
+	__TEST_REQUIRE(vpmu_vm.gic_fd >= 0,
+		       "Failed to create vgic-v3, skipping");
+
+	/* The max event number is (1 << 16), set a range largeer than it. */
+	invalid = __DEFINE_FILTER(BIT(15), BIT(15) + 1, 0);
+	ret = __kvm_device_attr_set(vpmu_vm.vcpu->fd, KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_CTRL,
+				    KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_FILTER, &invalid);
+	TEST_ASSERT(ret && errno == EINVAL, "Set Invalid filter range "
+		    "ret = %d, errno = %d (expected ret = -1, errno = EINVAL)",
+		    ret, errno);
+
+	/* Set the Invalid action. */
+	invalid = __DEFINE_FILTER(0, 1, 3);
+	ret = __kvm_device_attr_set(vpmu_vm.vcpu->fd, KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_CTRL,
+				    KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_FILTER, &invalid);
+	TEST_ASSERT(ret && errno == EINVAL, "Set Invalid filter action "
+		    "ret = %d, errno = %d (expected ret = -1, errno = EINVAL)",
+		    ret, errno);
+
+	destroy_vpmu_vm();
+}
+
 static void run_test(struct test_desc *t)
 {
 	pr_info("Test: %s\n", t->name);
@@ -300,4 +335,6 @@ int main(void)
 	TEST_REQUIRE(kvm_pmu_support_events());
 
 	run_tests();
+
+	test_invalid_filter();
 }
-- 
2.40.1

Re: [PATCH v9 2/3] KVM: selftests: aarch64: Introduce pmu_event_filter_test

[Raghavendra Rao Ananta]

Hi Shaoqin


On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 1:28 AM Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@redhat.com> wrote:

> +static void prepare_expected_pmce(struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *filter)
> +{
> +       struct pmu_common_event_ids pmce_mask = { ~0, ~0 };
> +       bool first_filter = true;
> +       int i;
> +
> +       while (filter && filter->nevents != 0) {
Do you also want to add a check to ensure we aren't running over
FILTER_NR (I'd expect a compiler warning/error though)?

> +               if (first_filter) {
> +                       if (filter->action == KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW)
> +                               memset(&pmce_mask, 0, sizeof(pmce_mask));
> +                       first_filter = false;
> +               }
nit: Probably we can make the 'first_filter' part a little cleaner by
checking this outside the loop.

if (filter && filter->action == KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW)
        memset(&pmce_mask, 0, sizeof(pmce_mask));

while (filter && filter->nevents != 0) {
    ...
}

> +static struct test_desc tests[] = {
> +       {
> +               .name = "without_filter",
> +               .filter = {
> +                       { 0 }
> +               },
> +       },
> +       {
> +               .name = "member_allow_filter",
> +               .filter = {
> +                       DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_SW_INCR, 0),
In terms of readability, do you think it's better to use
KVM_PMU_EVENT_{ALLOW|DENY}, instead of 0 and 1?

Or, if that's coming out to be too long, may be create another wrapper
over DEFINE_FILTER, and simply use that in the array:

#define EVENT_ALLOW(event) DEFINE_FILTER(event, KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW)
#define EVENT_DENY(event) DEFINE_FILTER(event, KVM_PMU_EVENT_DENY)

.filter = {
    EVENT_ALLOW(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_SW_INCR),

> +                       DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_INST_RETIRED, 0),
> +                       DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_BR_RETIRED, 0),
> +                       { 0 },
> +               },
> +       },

> +       {
> +               .name = "cancel_filter",
> +               .filter = {
> +                       DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_CPU_CYCLES, 0),
> +                       DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_CPU_CYCLES, 1),
> +               },
Since the initial filter map depends on the event being allowed or
denied, do you think another "cancel_filter" case to first deny and
then allow would also be better?

> +       },
> +       {
> +               .name = "multiple_filter",
> +               .filter = {
> +                       __DEFINE_FILTER(0x0, 0x10, 0),
> +                       __DEFINE_FILTER(0x6, 0x3, 1),
> +               },
> +       },
> +       { 0 }
> +};
> +
> +static void run_tests(void)
> +{
> +       struct test_desc *t;
> +
> +       for (t = &tests[0]; t->name; t++)
> +               run_test(t);
> +}
> +
> +int used_pmu_events[] = {
nit: static int used_pmu_events[] = {

Thank you.
Raghavendra


> +       ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_BR_RETIRED,
> +       ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_INST_RETIRED,
> +       ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_CHAIN,
> +};
> +
> +static bool kvm_pmu_support_events(void)
> +{
> +       struct pmu_common_event_ids used_pmce = { 0, 0 };
> +
> +       create_vpmu_vm(guest_get_pmceid);
> +
> +       memset(&max_pmce, 0, sizeof(max_pmce));
> +       sync_global_to_guest(vpmu_vm.vm, max_pmce);
> +       run_vcpu(vpmu_vm.vcpu);
> +       sync_global_from_guest(vpmu_vm.vm, max_pmce);
> +       destroy_vpmu_vm();
> +
> +       for (int i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(used_pmu_events); i++)
> +               set_pmce(&used_pmce, KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW, used_pmu_events[i]);
> +
> +       return ((max_pmce.pmceid0 & used_pmce.pmceid0) == used_pmce.pmceid0) &&
> +              ((max_pmce.pmceid1 & used_pmce.pmceid1) == used_pmce.pmceid1);
> +}
> +
> +int main(void)
> +{
> +       TEST_REQUIRE(kvm_has_cap(KVM_CAP_ARM_PMU_V3));
> +       TEST_REQUIRE(kvm_pmu_support_events());
> +
> +       run_tests();
> +}
> --
> 2.40.1
>
>

Re: [PATCH v9 3/3] KVM: selftests: aarch64: Add invalid filter test in pmu_event_filter_test

[Raghavendra Rao Ananta]

Hi Shaoqin,

On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 1:27 AM Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Add the invalid filter test which sets the filter beyond the event
> space and sets the invalid action to double check if the
> KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_FILTER will return the expected error.
>
> Reviewed-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@redhat.com>
> ---
>  .../kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c       | 37 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 37 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c
> index fb0fde1ed436..13b2f354c39b 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c
> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
>   * This test checks if the guest only see the limited pmu event that userspace
>   * sets, if the guest can use those events which user allow, and if the guest
>   * can't use those events which user deny.
> + * It also checks that setting invalid filter ranges return the expected error.
>   * This test runs only when KVM_CAP_ARM_PMU_V3, KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_FILTER
>   * is supported on the host.
>   */
> @@ -178,6 +179,40 @@ static void destroy_vpmu_vm(void)
>         kvm_vm_free(vpmu_vm.vm);
>  }
>
> +static void test_invalid_filter(void)
> +{
> +       struct kvm_pmu_event_filter invalid;
> +       int ret;
> +
> +       pr_info("Test: test_invalid_filter\n");
> +
> +       memset(&vpmu_vm, 0, sizeof(vpmu_vm));
> +
> +       vpmu_vm.vm = vm_create(1);
> +       vpmu_vm.vcpu = vm_vcpu_add_with_vpmu(vpmu_vm.vm, 0, guest_code);
> +       vpmu_vm.gic_fd = vgic_v3_setup(vpmu_vm.vm, 1, 64);
> +       __TEST_REQUIRE(vpmu_vm.gic_fd >= 0,
> +                      "Failed to create vgic-v3, skipping");
> +
> +       /* The max event number is (1 << 16), set a range largeer than it. */
nit: s/largeer/larger

Also, perhaps not in this series, but we can also check for -EBUSY
situations such as setting a (valid) filter after
KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_INIT and after the vCPUs have started.

Besides that, Reviewed-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>

- Raghavendra



> +       invalid = __DEFINE_FILTER(BIT(15), BIT(15) + 1, 0);
> +       ret = __kvm_device_attr_set(vpmu_vm.vcpu->fd, KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_CTRL,
> +                                   KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_FILTER, &invalid);
> +       TEST_ASSERT(ret && errno == EINVAL, "Set Invalid filter range "
> +                   "ret = %d, errno = %d (expected ret = -1, errno = EINVAL)",
> +                   ret, errno);
> +
> +       /* Set the Invalid action. */
> +       invalid = __DEFINE_FILTER(0, 1, 3);
> +       ret = __kvm_device_attr_set(vpmu_vm.vcpu->fd, KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_CTRL,
> +                                   KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_FILTER, &invalid);
> +       TEST_ASSERT(ret && errno == EINVAL, "Set Invalid filter action "
> +                   "ret = %d, errno = %d (expected ret = -1, errno = EINVAL)",
> +                   ret, errno);
> +
> +       destroy_vpmu_vm();
> +}
> +
>  static void run_test(struct test_desc *t)
>  {
>         pr_info("Test: %s\n", t->name);
> @@ -300,4 +335,6 @@ int main(void)
>         TEST_REQUIRE(kvm_pmu_support_events());
>
>         run_tests();
> +
> +       test_invalid_filter();
>  }
> --
> 2.40.1
>
>

Re: [PATCH v9 2/3] KVM: selftests: aarch64: Introduce pmu_event_filter_test

[Shaoqin Huang]

Hi Raghavendra,

Thanks for helping review this series.

On 6/18/24 08:01, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> Hi Shaoqin
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 1:28 AM Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> +static void prepare_expected_pmce(struct kvm_pmu_event_filter *filter)
>> +{
>> +       struct pmu_common_event_ids pmce_mask = { ~0, ~0 };
>> +       bool first_filter = true;
>> +       int i;
>> +
>> +       while (filter && filter->nevents != 0) {
> Do you also want to add a check to ensure we aren't running over
> FILTER_NR (I'd expect a compiler warning/error though)?

The FILTER_NR is only used to assign the length of the filter array, if 
the defined filter array length is larger than the FILTER_NR, I believe 
there will be a compiling warning.

> 
>> +               if (first_filter) {
>> +                       if (filter->action == KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW)
>> +                               memset(&pmce_mask, 0, sizeof(pmce_mask));
>> +                       first_filter = false;
>> +               }
> nit: Probably we can make the 'first_filter' part a little cleaner by
> checking this outside the loop.
> 
> if (filter && filter->action == KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW)
>          memset(&pmce_mask, 0, sizeof(pmce_mask));
> 
> while (filter && filter->nevents != 0) {
>      ...
> }

Thanks, this looks much better and I will change the code to it.

> 
>> +static struct test_desc tests[] = {
>> +       {
>> +               .name = "without_filter",
>> +               .filter = {
>> +                       { 0 }
>> +               },
>> +       },
>> +       {
>> +               .name = "member_allow_filter",
>> +               .filter = {
>> +                       DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_SW_INCR, 0),
> In terms of readability, do you think it's better to use
> KVM_PMU_EVENT_{ALLOW|DENY}, instead of 0 and 1?
> 
> Or, if that's coming out to be too long, may be create another wrapper
> over DEFINE_FILTER, and simply use that in the array:
> 
> #define EVENT_ALLOW(event) DEFINE_FILTER(event, KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW)
> #define EVENT_DENY(event) DEFINE_FILTER(event, KVM_PMU_EVENT_DENY)
> 
> .filter = {
>      EVENT_ALLOW(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_SW_INCR),
> 

Pretty good idea. I will take your code which looks much clean.

>> +                       DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_INST_RETIRED, 0),
>> +                       DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_BR_RETIRED, 0),
>> +                       { 0 },
>> +               },
>> +       },
> 
>> +       {
>> +               .name = "cancel_filter",
>> +               .filter = {
>> +                       DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_CPU_CYCLES, 0),
>> +                       DEFINE_FILTER(ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_CPU_CYCLES, 1),
>> +               },
> Since the initial filter map depends on the event being allowed or
> denied, do you think another "cancel_filter" case to first deny and
> then allow would also be better?

Yes. That would be better, I will add another test which first deny and 
then allow it.

> 
>> +       },
>> +       {
>> +               .name = "multiple_filter",
>> +               .filter = {
>> +                       __DEFINE_FILTER(0x0, 0x10, 0),
>> +                       __DEFINE_FILTER(0x6, 0x3, 1),
>> +               },
>> +       },
>> +       { 0 }
>> +};
>> +
>> +static void run_tests(void)
>> +{
>> +       struct test_desc *t;
>> +
>> +       for (t = &tests[0]; t->name; t++)
>> +               run_test(t);
>> +}
>> +
>> +int used_pmu_events[] = {
> nit: static int used_pmu_events[] = {
> 

Got it.

Thanks,
Shaoqin

> Thank you.
> Raghavendra
> 
> 
>> +       ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_BR_RETIRED,
>> +       ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_INST_RETIRED,
>> +       ARMV8_PMUV3_PERFCTR_CHAIN,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static bool kvm_pmu_support_events(void)
>> +{
>> +       struct pmu_common_event_ids used_pmce = { 0, 0 };
>> +
>> +       create_vpmu_vm(guest_get_pmceid);
>> +
>> +       memset(&max_pmce, 0, sizeof(max_pmce));
>> +       sync_global_to_guest(vpmu_vm.vm, max_pmce);
>> +       run_vcpu(vpmu_vm.vcpu);
>> +       sync_global_from_guest(vpmu_vm.vm, max_pmce);
>> +       destroy_vpmu_vm();
>> +
>> +       for (int i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(used_pmu_events); i++)
>> +               set_pmce(&used_pmce, KVM_PMU_EVENT_ALLOW, used_pmu_events[i]);
>> +
>> +       return ((max_pmce.pmceid0 & used_pmce.pmceid0) == used_pmce.pmceid0) &&
>> +              ((max_pmce.pmceid1 & used_pmce.pmceid1) == used_pmce.pmceid1);
>> +}
>> +
>> +int main(void)
>> +{
>> +       TEST_REQUIRE(kvm_has_cap(KVM_CAP_ARM_PMU_V3));
>> +       TEST_REQUIRE(kvm_pmu_support_events());
>> +
>> +       run_tests();
>> +}
>> --
>> 2.40.1
>>
>>
> 

-- 
Shaoqin

Re: [PATCH v9 3/3] KVM: selftests: aarch64: Add invalid filter test in pmu_event_filter_test

[Shaoqin Huang]

On 6/18/24 08:01, Raghavendra Rao Ananta wrote:
> Hi Shaoqin,
> 
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 1:27 AM Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Add the invalid filter test which sets the filter beyond the event
>> space and sets the invalid action to double check if the
>> KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_FILTER will return the expected error.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>   .../kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c       | 37 +++++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 37 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c
>> index fb0fde1ed436..13b2f354c39b 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/aarch64/pmu_event_filter_test.c
>> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
>>    * This test checks if the guest only see the limited pmu event that userspace
>>    * sets, if the guest can use those events which user allow, and if the guest
>>    * can't use those events which user deny.
>> + * It also checks that setting invalid filter ranges return the expected error.
>>    * This test runs only when KVM_CAP_ARM_PMU_V3, KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_FILTER
>>    * is supported on the host.
>>    */
>> @@ -178,6 +179,40 @@ static void destroy_vpmu_vm(void)
>>          kvm_vm_free(vpmu_vm.vm);
>>   }
>>
>> +static void test_invalid_filter(void)
>> +{
>> +       struct kvm_pmu_event_filter invalid;
>> +       int ret;
>> +
>> +       pr_info("Test: test_invalid_filter\n");
>> +
>> +       memset(&vpmu_vm, 0, sizeof(vpmu_vm));
>> +
>> +       vpmu_vm.vm = vm_create(1);
>> +       vpmu_vm.vcpu = vm_vcpu_add_with_vpmu(vpmu_vm.vm, 0, guest_code);
>> +       vpmu_vm.gic_fd = vgic_v3_setup(vpmu_vm.vm, 1, 64);
>> +       __TEST_REQUIRE(vpmu_vm.gic_fd >= 0,
>> +                      "Failed to create vgic-v3, skipping");
>> +
>> +       /* The max event number is (1 << 16), set a range largeer than it. */
> nit: s/largeer/larger
> 
> Also, perhaps not in this series, but we can also check for -EBUSY
> situations such as setting a (valid) filter after
> KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_INIT and after the vCPUs have started.
> 

That's also a great test, we can add it in the future.

> Besides that, Reviewed-by: Raghavendra Rao Ananta <rananta@google.com>

Thanks a lot for your reviewing.

> 
> - Raghavendra
> 
> 
> 
>> +       invalid = __DEFINE_FILTER(BIT(15), BIT(15) + 1, 0);
>> +       ret = __kvm_device_attr_set(vpmu_vm.vcpu->fd, KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_CTRL,
>> +                                   KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_FILTER, &invalid);
>> +       TEST_ASSERT(ret && errno == EINVAL, "Set Invalid filter range "
>> +                   "ret = %d, errno = %d (expected ret = -1, errno = EINVAL)",
>> +                   ret, errno);
>> +
>> +       /* Set the Invalid action. */
>> +       invalid = __DEFINE_FILTER(0, 1, 3);
>> +       ret = __kvm_device_attr_set(vpmu_vm.vcpu->fd, KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_CTRL,
>> +                                   KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3_FILTER, &invalid);
>> +       TEST_ASSERT(ret && errno == EINVAL, "Set Invalid filter action "
>> +                   "ret = %d, errno = %d (expected ret = -1, errno = EINVAL)",
>> +                   ret, errno);
>> +
>> +       destroy_vpmu_vm();
>> +}
>> +
>>   static void run_test(struct test_desc *t)
>>   {
>>          pr_info("Test: %s\n", t->name);
>> @@ -300,4 +335,6 @@ int main(void)
>>          TEST_REQUIRE(kvm_pmu_support_events());
>>
>>          run_tests();
>> +
>> +       test_invalid_filter();
>>   }
>> --
>> 2.40.1
>>
>>
> 

-- 
Shaoqin