[v8,20/20] KVM: ARM64: Add a new kvm ARM PMU device

Commit Message

Shannon Zhao Jan. 7, 2016, 2:35 p.m. UTC

On 2016/1/7 21:56, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 22/12/15 08:08, Shannon Zhao wrote:
>> > From: Shannon Zhao <[e-mail]>
>> > 
>> > Add a new kvm device type KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3 for ARM PMU. Implement
>> > the kvm_device_ops for it.
>> > 
>> > Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <[e-mail]>
>> > ---
>> >  Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt |  24 +++++
>> >  arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h             |   4 +
>> >  include/linux/kvm_host.h                      |   1 +
>> >  include/uapi/linux/kvm.h                      |   2 +
>> >  virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c                            | 128 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >  virt/kvm/kvm_main.c                           |   4 +
>> >  6 files changed, 163 insertions(+)
>> >  create mode 100644 Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt
>> > 
>> > diff --git a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt
>> > new file mode 100644
>> > index 0000000..dda864e
>> > --- /dev/null
>> > +++ b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-pmu.txt
>> > @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@
>> > +ARM Virtual Performance Monitor Unit (vPMU)
>> > +===========================================
>> > +
>> > +Device types supported:
>> > +  KVM_DEV_TYPE_ARM_PMU_V3         ARM Performance Monitor Unit v3
>> > +
>> > +Instantiate one PMU instance for per VCPU through this API.
>> > +
>> > +Groups:
>> > +  KVM_DEV_ARM_PMU_GRP_IRQ
>> > +  Attributes:
>> > +    The attr field of kvm_device_attr encodes one value:
>> > +    bits:     | 63 .... 32 | 31 ....  0 |
>> > +    values:   |  reserved  | vcpu_index |
>> > +    A value describing the PMU overflow interrupt number for the specified
>> > +    vcpu_index vcpu. This interrupt could be a PPI or SPI, but for one VM the
>> > +    interrupt type must be same for each vcpu. As a PPI, the interrupt number is
>> > +    same for all vcpus, while as a SPI it must be different for each vcpu.
> I don't see anything enforcing these restrictions in the code (you can
> program different PPIs on each vcpu, or the same SPI everywhere, and
> nothing will generate an error).
> 
> Is that something we want to enforce? Or we're happy just to leave it as
> an unsupported corner case?
> 

Yeah, it should add the check. How about below check?

                        return -EINVAL;

                return kvm_arm_pmu_irq_access(dev->kvm, attr, &reg, true);

Thanks,

Patch

diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
index 0ccf273..c3347e9 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/arm/pmu.c
@@ -435,6 +435,29 @@  static void kvm_arm_pmu_destroy(struct kvm_device *dev)
        kfree(dev);
 }

+static bool irq_is_invalid(kvm_device *dev, int irq, bool is_ppi)
+{
+       int i;
+       struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
+       struct kvm *kvm = dev->kvm;
+
+       kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
+               struct kvm_pmu *pmu = &vcpu->arch.pmu;
+
+               if (!kvm_arm_pmu_initialized(vcpu))
+                       continue;
+
+               if (is_ppi)
+                       if (pmu->irq_num != irq)
+                               return true;
+               else
+                       if (pmu->irq_num == irq)
+                               return true;
+       }
+
+       return false;
+}
+
 static int kvm_arm_pmu_set_attr(struct kvm_device *dev,
                                struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
 {
@@ -452,7 +475,8 @@  static int kvm_arm_pmu_set_attr(struct kvm_device *dev,
                 * the interrupt number is same for all vcpus, while as
a SPI it
                 * must be different for each vcpu.
                 */
-               if (reg < VGIC_NR_SGIS || reg >=
dev->kvm->arch.vgic.nr_irqs)
+               if (reg < VGIC_NR_SGIS || reg >=
dev->kvm->arch.vgic.nr_irqs ||
+                   irq_is_invalid(dev, reg, reg < VGIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS))