linux-kernel - [tip:perfcounters/core] perf_counter: x86: Robustify interrupt handling

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 15 May 2009 08:43:37 GMT
From:	tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, paulus@...ba.org, hpa@...or.com,
	mingo@...hat.com, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, tglx@...utronix.de,
	cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: [tip:perfcounters/core] perf_counter: x86: Robustify interrupt handling

Commit-ID:  a4016a79fcbd139e7378944c0d86a39fdbc70ecc
Gitweb:     http://git.kernel.org/tip/a4016a79fcbd139e7378944c0d86a39fdbc70ecc
Author:     Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
AuthorDate: Thu, 14 May 2009 14:52:17 +0200
Committer:  Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CommitDate: Fri, 15 May 2009 09:47:03 +0200

perf_counter: x86: Robustify interrupt handling

Two consecutive NMIs could daze and confuse the machine when the
first would handle the overflow of both counters.

[ Impact: fix false-positive syslog messages under multi-session profiling ]

Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc: Corey Ashford <cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
LKML-Reference: <new-submission>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>


---
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_counter.c |   16 +++++++++++++---
 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_counter.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_counter.c
index 313638c..1dcf670 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_counter.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_counter.c
@@ -783,6 +783,10 @@ static int amd_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs, int nmi)
 
 		counter = cpuc->counters[idx];
 		hwc = &counter->hw;
+
+		if (counter->hw_event.nmi != nmi)
+			goto next;
+
 		val = x86_perf_counter_update(counter, hwc, idx);
 		if (val & (1ULL << (x86_pmu.counter_bits - 1)))
 			goto next;
@@ -869,7 +873,6 @@ perf_counter_nmi_handler(struct notifier_block *self,
 {
 	struct die_args *args = __args;
 	struct pt_regs *regs;
-	int ret;
 
 	if (!atomic_read(&active_counters))
 		return NOTIFY_DONE;
@@ -886,9 +889,16 @@ perf_counter_nmi_handler(struct notifier_block *self,
 	regs = args->regs;
 
 	apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, APIC_DM_NMI);
-	ret = x86_pmu.handle_irq(regs, 1);
+	/*
+	 * Can't rely on the handled return value to say it was our NMI, two
+	 * counters could trigger 'simultaneously' raising two back-to-back NMIs.
+	 *
+	 * If the first NMI handles both, the latter will be empty and daze
+	 * the CPU.
+	 */
+	x86_pmu.handle_irq(regs, 1);
 
-	return ret ? NOTIFY_STOP : NOTIFY_OK;
+	return NOTIFY_STOP;
 }
 
 static __read_mostly struct notifier_block perf_counter_nmi_notifier = {
--
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/