[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/vPMU: constrain MSR_IA32_DS_AREA loads
On 12/18/2015 10:19 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 18.12.15 at 16:12, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 12/18/2015 01:21 AM, Tian, Kevin wrote:
From: Boris Ostrovsky [mailto:boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 10:42 PM
On 12/17/2015 09:29 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 17.12.15 at 15:26, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 12/17/2015 09:18 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 17.12.15 at 15:12, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 12/17/2015 09:01 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
@@ -415,8 +416,10 @@ static int core2_vpmu_verify(struct vcpu
enabled_cntrs |= (1ULL << i);
}
- if ( vpmu_is_set(vcpu_vpmu(v), VPMU_CPU_HAS_DS) &&
- !is_canonical_address(core2_vpmu_cxt->ds_area) )
+ if ( vpmu_is_set(vpmu, VPMU_CPU_HAS_DS) &&
+ !(has_hvm_container_vcpu(v)
+ ? is_canonical_address(core2_vpmu_cxt->ds_area)
+ : __addr_ok(core2_vpmu_cxt->ds_area)) )
Should we instead of (or in addition to) this also make the same change
in core2_vpmu_do_wrmsr()?
Currently there's no need for this since - afaict - PV guests can't
write this MSR directly (it's not among the white listed set in
traps.c).
Then we probably shouldn't set VPMU_CPU_HAS_DS for PV guests.
Or add the MSR to the permitted set. You know better than I
what the best route here is.
I vaguely recall a conversation where we weren't sure whether BTS (which
needs DS area) will work for PV. Something to do with DS address being
in the right context (guest or host). I'd need to find that conversation
(or test BTS on PV).
I guess I don't need to review current patch until you have a conclusion,
right? :-)
All I can say that is BTS does not work on PV (at least as far as perf
is concerned, which is the only tool I know that could use it). Which is
not surprising given that we can't access DS_AREA MSR.
But in the context of this patch (and what direction a v2 might
need to go) we'd need to assume that MSR can be accessed.
In which case I think we need to add the same test to
core2_vpmu_do_wrmsr() as well.
My earlier statement that we perform this test there *instead of* doing
in core2_vpmu_verify() was incorrect --- we need to do it in both places
since the value can come from the guest in the vpmu_context that we are
loading thus bypassing core2_vpmu_do_wrmsr() path.
-boris
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
