linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/8] perf: add PMU_RANGE_ATTR() helper for use by sw-like pmus

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:	Mon, 03 Feb 2014 13:19:42 -0800
From:	Cody P Schafer <cody@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	Linux PPC <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
CC:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] perf: add PMU_RANGE_ATTR() helper for use by sw-like
 pmus

On 01/31/2014 09:58 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-16-01 at 23:53:47 UTC, Cody P Schafer wrote:
>> Add PMU_RANGE_ATTR() and PMU_RANGE_RESV() (for reserved areas) which
>> generate functions to extract the relevent bits from
>> event->attr.config{,1,2} for use by sw-like pmus where the
>> 'config{,1,2}' values don't map directly to hardware registers.
>
> This is neat.
>
> The split of the macros is a bit weird, ie. PMU_RANGE_RESV() doesn't really do
> what it's name suggests.
>
> I think you want one macro which creates the accessors, with a name that
> reflects that - yeah I can't think of a good one right now, but "event" should
> probably be in there because that's what it operates on.
>
> Having a macro for the reserved regions is good, but you MUST actually check
> that the reserved regions are zero. Otherwise you are permitting your caller to
> pass junk in there and you then can't unreserved them in a future version of
> the API.
>
> So I think a macro that gives you a special reserved region routine would be
> good, so you can write something like:
>
>    if (event_check_reserved1() || event_check_reserved2())
>    	return -EINVAL;
>

The way it's set up right now, RESV is just a hint to the user of the 
PMU_RANGE_ATTR() and PMU_RANGE_RESV() macros to indicate which to use. 
RESV simply avoids creating an attr format which would go unused only in 
the case where the range is a reserved one (and gcc would complain about 
it).

I don't like the "event_check_foo()" bit because that is actually 
identical to "event_get_foo()", I don't see a point in generating 
differently named functions that do exactly the same thing.

The current user (hv-24x7.c) of PMU_RANGE_RESV() already does the 
appropriate checking:

	if (event_get_reserved1(event) ||
	    event_get_reserved2(event) ||
	    event_get_reserved3(event)) {
		pr_devel("reserved set when forbidden 0x%llx(0x%llx) 0x%llx(0x%llx) 
0x%llx(0x%llx)\n",
				event->attr.config,
				event_get_reserved1(event),
				event->attr.config1,
				event_get_reserved2(event),
				event->attr.config2,
				event_get_reserved3(event));
		return -EINVAL;
	}

--
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/