From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, will@kernel.org,
catalin.marinas@arm.com, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
James Clark <james.clark@arm.com>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
Suzuki Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
kvmarm@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH V16 2/8] KVM: arm64: Prevent guest accesses into BRBE system registers/instructions
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 12:58:48 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ab50e67e-3d06-4ba7-a5f8-4684e9ef98a4@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZdYCUi9YVDNDz7fr@FVFF77S0Q05N>
On 2/21/24 19:31, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 03:11:13PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> Currently BRBE feature is not supported in a guest environment. This hides
>> BRBE feature availability via masking ID_AA64DFR0_EL1.BRBE field.
>
> Does that means that a guest can currently see BRBE advertised in the
> ID_AA64DFR0_EL1.BRB field, or is that hidden by the regular cpufeature code
> today?
IIRC it is hidden, but will have to double check. When experimenting for BRBE
guest support enablement earlier, following changes were need for the feature
to be visible in ID_AA64DFR0_EL1.
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
index 646591c67e7a..f258568535a8 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
@@ -445,6 +445,7 @@ static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_id_mmfr0[] = {
};
static const struct arm64_ftr_bits ftr_id_aa64dfr0[] = {
+ S_ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_VISIBLE, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_BRBE_SHIFT, 4, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_BRBE_IMP),
S_ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_DoubleLock_SHIFT, 4, 0),
ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_NONSTRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_PMSVer_SHIFT, 4, 0),
ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_CTX_CMPs_SHIFT, 4, 0),
Should we add the following entry - explicitly hiding BRBE from the guest
as a prerequisite patch ?
S_ARM64_FTR_BITS(FTR_HIDDEN, FTR_STRICT, FTR_LOWER_SAFE, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_BRBE_SHIFT, 4, ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_BRBE_NI)
>
>> This also blocks guest accesses into BRBE system registers and instructions
>> as if the underlying hardware never implemented FEAT_BRBE feature.
>>
>> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>
>> Cc: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
>> Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
>> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
>> Cc: kvmarm@lists.linux.dev
>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
>> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
>> ---
>> Changes in V16:
>>
>> - Added BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1 macro for corresponding BRB_[INF|SRC|TGT] expansion
>>
>> arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
>> index 30253bd19917..6a06dc2f0c06 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/sys_regs.c
>> @@ -1304,6 +1304,11 @@ static int set_pmcr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, const struct sys_reg_desc *r,
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +#define BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(n) \
>> + { SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBINF##n##_EL1), undef_access }, \
>> + { SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBSRC##n##_EL1), undef_access }, \
>> + { SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBTGT##n##_EL1), undef_access } \
>
> With the changes suggested on the previous patch, this would need to change to be:
>
> #define BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(n) \
> { SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBINF_EL1(n)), undef_access }, \
> { SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBSRC_EL1(n)), undef_access }, \
> { SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBTGT_EL1(n)), undef_access } \
Sure, already folded back in these above changes.
>
>
> ... which would also be easier for backporting (if necessary), since those
> definitions have existed for a while.
>
> Otherwise (modulo Suzuki's comment about rebasing), this looks good to me.
Okay.
>
> Mark.
>
>> /* Silly macro to expand the DBG{BCR,BVR,WVR,WCR}n_EL1 registers in one go */
>> #define DBG_BCR_BVR_WCR_WVR_EL1(n) \
>> { SYS_DESC(SYS_DBGBVRn_EL1(n)), \
>> @@ -1707,6 +1712,9 @@ static u64 read_sanitised_id_aa64dfr0_el1(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>> /* Hide SPE from guests */
>> val &= ~ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_PMSVer_MASK;
>>
>> + /* Hide BRBE from guests */
>> + val &= ~ID_AA64DFR0_EL1_BRBE_MASK;
>> +
>> return val;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -2195,6 +2203,8 @@ static const struct sys_reg_desc sys_reg_descs[] = {
>> { SYS_DESC(SYS_DC_CISW), access_dcsw },
>> { SYS_DESC(SYS_DC_CIGSW), access_dcgsw },
>> { SYS_DESC(SYS_DC_CIGDSW), access_dcgsw },
>> + { SYS_DESC(OP_BRB_IALL), undef_access },
>> + { SYS_DESC(OP_BRB_INJ), undef_access },
>>
>> DBG_BCR_BVR_WCR_WVR_EL1(0),
>> DBG_BCR_BVR_WCR_WVR_EL1(1),
>> @@ -2225,6 +2235,52 @@ static const struct sys_reg_desc sys_reg_descs[] = {
>> { SYS_DESC(SYS_DBGCLAIMCLR_EL1), trap_raz_wi },
>> { SYS_DESC(SYS_DBGAUTHSTATUS_EL1), trap_dbgauthstatus_el1 },
>>
>> + /*
>> + * BRBE branch record sysreg address space is interleaved between
>> + * corresponding BRBINF<N>_EL1, BRBSRC<N>_EL1, and BRBTGT<N>_EL1.
>> + */
>> + BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(0),
>> + BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(16),
>> + BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(1),
>> + BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(17),
>> + BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(2),
>> + BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(18),
>> + BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(3),
>> + BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(19),
>> + BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(4),
>> + BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(20),
>> + BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(5),
>> + BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(21),
>> + BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(6),
>> + BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(22),
>> + BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(7),
>> + BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(23),
>> + BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(8),
>> + BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(24),
>> + BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(9),
>> + BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(25),
>> + BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(10),
>> + BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(26),
>> + BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(11),
>> + BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(27),
>> + BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(12),
>> + BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(28),
>> + BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(13),
>> + BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(29),
>> + BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(14),
>> + BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(30),
>> + BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(15),
>> + BRB_INF_SRC_TGT_EL1(31),
>> +
>> + /* Remaining BRBE sysreg addresses space */
>> + { SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBCR_EL1), undef_access },
>> + { SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBFCR_EL1), undef_access },
>> + { SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBTS_EL1), undef_access },
>> + { SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBINFINJ_EL1), undef_access },
>> + { SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBSRCINJ_EL1), undef_access },
>> + { SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBTGTINJ_EL1), undef_access },
>> + { SYS_DESC(SYS_BRBIDR0_EL1), undef_access },
>> +
>> { SYS_DESC(SYS_MDCCSR_EL0), trap_raz_wi },
>> { SYS_DESC(SYS_DBGDTR_EL0), trap_raz_wi },
>> // DBGDTR[TR]X_EL0 share the same encoding
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-02-23 7:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-25 9:41 [PATCH V16 0/8] arm64/perf: Enable branch stack sampling Anshuman Khandual
2024-01-25 9:41 ` [PATCH V16 1/8] arm64/sysreg: Add BRBE registers and fields Anshuman Khandual
2024-01-25 14:20 ` Mark Brown
2024-02-21 13:52 ` Mark Rutland
2024-02-21 13:59 ` Mark Brown
2024-02-21 14:05 ` Mark Rutland
2024-02-21 14:07 ` Mark Brown
2024-02-23 5:28 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-02-23 13:31 ` Mark Brown
2024-02-23 6:36 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-01-25 9:41 ` [PATCH V16 2/8] KVM: arm64: Prevent guest accesses into BRBE system registers/instructions Anshuman Khandual
2024-01-29 12:15 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2024-01-30 3:40 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-02-21 14:01 ` Mark Rutland
2024-02-23 7:28 ` Anshuman Khandual [this message]
2024-02-27 10:04 ` Mark Rutland
2024-02-27 11:13 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-02-29 11:45 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2024-02-29 12:50 ` Mark Rutland
2024-02-29 15:43 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2024-03-01 7:46 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-03-01 12:49 ` Mark Rutland
2024-01-25 9:41 ` [PATCH V16 3/8] drivers: perf: arm_pmuv3: Enable branch stack sampling framework Anshuman Khandual
2024-01-25 13:44 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2024-01-29 4:35 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-02-21 17:25 ` Mark Rutland
2024-03-01 5:37 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-03-01 13:52 ` Mark Rutland
2024-01-25 9:41 ` [PATCH V16 4/8] drivers: perf: arm_pmuv3: Enable branch stack sampling via FEAT_BRBE Anshuman Khandual
2024-02-21 18:23 ` Mark Rutland
2024-02-28 8:11 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-02-28 11:52 ` Mark Rutland
2024-02-29 8:55 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-01-25 9:41 ` [PATCH V16 5/8] KVM: arm64: nvhe: Disable branch generation in nVHE guests Anshuman Khandual
2024-01-29 12:20 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2024-01-30 3:41 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-02-29 18:40 ` Marc Zyngier
2024-03-01 2:20 ` Anshuman Khandual
2024-01-25 9:41 ` [PATCH V16 6/8] perf: test: Speed up running brstack test on an Arm model Anshuman Khandual
2024-01-25 9:41 ` [PATCH V16 7/8] perf: test: Remove empty lines from branch filter test output Anshuman Khandual
2024-01-25 9:41 ` [PATCH V16 8/8] perf: test: Extend branch stack sampling test for Arm64 BRBE Anshuman Khandual
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ab50e67e-3d06-4ba7-a5f8-4684e9ef98a4@arm.com \
--to=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=james.clark@arm.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=oliver.upton@linux.dev \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).