linux-kernel - Re: [tip:perf/urgent] perf, x86: Catch spurious interrupts after disabling counters

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 29 Sep 2010 14:12:07 -0400
From:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>
To:	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
Cc:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"yinghai@...nel.org" <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	"andi@...stfloor.org" <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"ying.huang@...el.com" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
	"fweisbec@...il.com" <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	"ming.m.lin@...el.com" <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [tip:perf/urgent] perf, x86: Catch spurious interrupts after
 disabling counters

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 07:09:24PM +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> On 29.09.10 12:00:35, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > Here is a scenario:
> > 
> > event A -> counter 0, cpuc->running = 0x1 active_mask = 0x1
> > move A
> > event A -> counter 1, cpuc->running = 0x3, active_mask = 0x2
> > 
> > No interrupt, we are just counting for a short period.
> > Then, you get an NMI interrupt, suppose it is not generated
> > by the PMU, it is destined for another handler.
> > 
> > For i=0, you have (active_mask & 0x1) == 0, but (running & 0x1) == 1,
> > you mark the interrupt as handled, i.e., you swallow it, the actual
> > handler never gets it.
> 
> Yes, then changing the counters you will get *one* nmi with 2 handled
> counters. This is valid as the disabled counter could generate a
> spurious interrupt. But you get (handled == 2) instead of (handled ==
> 1) which is not much impact. All following nmis have (handled == 1)
> then again.

Robert, 

I think you missed Stephane's point.  Say for example, kgdb is being used
while we are doing stuff with the perf counter (and say kgdb's handler is
a lower priority than perf; which isn't true I know, but let's say):

perf NMI comes in, issues pmu_stop 'cleanly' (meaning no spurious
interrupt).  The cpuc->running bit is never cleared.

kgdb NMI comes in, but the die_chain dictates perf looks at it first.
perf will see that cpuc->active == 0 and cpuc->running == 1 and bump
handled.  Thus returning NOTIFY_STOP.  kgdb never sees the NMI. :-(

Now I sent a patch last week that can prevent that extra NMI from being
generated at the cost of another rdmsrl in the non-pmu_stop cases (which I
will attach below again, obviously P4 would need something similar too).

I think we currently don't see the problems Stephane describes because the
only thing we test that uses NMIs are perf, which also happens to be a low
priority on the die_chain.

But it is an interesting scenario that we should look at more.

Cheers,
Don


diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
index 48c6d8d..1642f48 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
@@ -1175,11 +1175,22 @@ static int x86_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
 		handled++;
 		data.period	= event->hw.last_period;
 
-		if (!x86_perf_event_set_period(event))
-			continue;
+		/*
+		 * if period is over, process the overflow
+		 * before reseting the counter, otherwise
+		 * a new overflow could occur before the 
+		 * event is stopped
+		 */
+		if (local64_read(&hwc->period_left) <= 0) {
+			if (perf_event_overflow(event, 1, &data, regs)) {
+				x86_pmu_stop(event, 0);
+				continue;
+			}
+			/* if the overflow doesn't stop the event, resync */
+			x86_perf_event_update(event);
+		}
 
-		if (perf_event_overflow(event, 1, &data, regs))
-			x86_pmu_stop(event, 0);
+		x86_perf_event_set_period(event);
 	}
 
 	if (handled)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/