linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] perf, x86: bug fix for cycles:p and cycles:pp on SLM

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, 15 Dec 2014 16:21:50 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	kan.liang@...el.com
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ak@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] perf, x86: bug fix for cycles:p and cycles:pp on SLM

On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 06:27:43AM -0800, kan.liang@...el.com wrote:
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_ds.c
> @@ -568,8 +568,8 @@ struct event_constraint intel_atom_pebs_event_constraints[] = {
>  };
>  
>  struct event_constraint intel_slm_pebs_event_constraints[] = {
> -	/* UOPS_RETIRED.ALL, inv=1, cmask=16 (cycles:p). */
> -	INTEL_FLAGS_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x108001c2, 0xf),
> +	/* INST_RETIRED.ANY_P */
> +	INTEL_UEVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x00c0, 0x1),

Should that not be:
	INTEL_FLAGS_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x108000c0, 0x1),

instead?

>  	/* Allow all events as PEBS with no flags */
>  	INTEL_ALL_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0, 0x1),
>  	EVENT_CONSTRAINT_END
> -- 
> 1.8.3.1
> 
--
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/