linux-kernel - Re: perf, x86: Fix PEBS enable/disable vs cpuc->enabled

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 16 Mar 2011 17:59:44 -0700
From:	Arun Sharma <asharma@...com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-perf-user@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: perf, x86: Fix PEBS enable/disable vs cpuc->enabled


This commit:

commit 4807e3d5dc7bb7057dd6ca3abb09f3da2eb8c323
Author: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Date:   Sat Mar 6 13:47:07 2010 +0100

    perf, x86: Fix PEBS enable/disable vs cpuc->enabled

    We should never call ->enable with the pmu enabled, and we _can_ have
    ->disable called with the pmu enabled.

introduced a new warning that's triggering on one of my test machines when I tried
counter multiplexing (more events than number of general purpose counters):

perf stat -e cycles,instructions,cache-misses,cache-misses,cache-misses,cache-misses,branch-misses -a -- sleep 10

The trace looks as follows:

WARNING: at arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_ds.c:499 intel_pmu_enable_event+0x18f/0x2bc()
Pid: 0, comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 2.6.38-00029-g0d3bcb8 #12
Call Trace:
<IRQ> [<ffffffff8103c810>] ? warn_slowpath_common+0x80/0x98
[<ffffffff8103c83d>] ? warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x17
[<ffffffff8100f3cb>] ? intel_pmu_enable_event+0x18f/0x2bc
[<ffffffff8100f939>] ? x86_pmu_start+0xf7/0x108
[<ffffffff8109dd33>] ? perf_adjust_period+0x141/0x15c
[<ffffffff810a44ce>] ? perf_ctx_adjust_freq+0xd2/0x10a
[<ffffffff810a45f0>] ? perf_event_task_tick+0xea/0x1f0
[<ffffffff810389e9>] ? scheduler_tick+0xc8/0x258
[<ffffffff8104920f>] ? update_process_times+0x62/0x72
[<ffffffff810628bd>] ? tick_nohz_handler+0x8d/0xd6
[<ffffffff8101bfbc>] ? smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x83/0x96
[<ffffffff81003253>] ? apic_timer_interrupt+0x13/0x20
<EOI> [<ffffffff81209eb5>] ? intel_idle+0xc3/0xe9
[<ffffffff81209e98>] ? intel_idle+0xa6/0xe9
[<ffffffff81375a12>] ? cpuidle_idle_call+0x112/0x1b8
[<ffffffff81001c15>] ? cpu_idle+0x5a/0x91
[<ffffffff8143168b>] ? start_secondary+0x180/0x184
---[ end trace 0717acdc46c926b2 ]---

This was 2.6.38 + a few perf patches from the x86 tip. I believe stock 2.6.38 will behave similarly.

static void x86_pmu_start(struct perf_event *event, int flags)
{
...
       if (flags & PERF_EF_RELOAD) {
                WARN_ON_ONCE(!(event->hw.state & PERF_HES_UPTODATE));
                x86_perf_event_set_period(event); 
		// missing return here?
        }
	..
}

I wonder if the code should return for the PERF_EF_RELOAD case, rather than falling through.

 -Arun
--
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/