linux-kernel - Re: IV.5 - Intel Last Branch Record (LBR)

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]

Message-ID: <20090622120133.GT24366@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:01:33 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	eranian@...il.com
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Maynard Johnson <mpjohn@...ibm.com>,
	Carl Love <cel@...ibm.com>,
	Corey J Ashford <cjashfor@...ibm.com>,
	Philip Mucci <mucci@...s.utk.edu>,
	Dan Terpstra <terpstra@...s.utk.edu>,
	perfmon2-devel <perfmon2-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: IV.5 - Intel Last Branch Record (LBR)

> 5/ Intel Last Branch Record (LBR)
>
> Intel processors since Netburst have a cyclic buffer hosted in
> registers which can record taken branches. Each taken branch is
> stored into a pair of LBR registers (source, destination). Up
> until Nehalem, there was not filtering capabilities for LBR. LBR
> is not an architected PMU feature.
>
> There is no counter associated with LBR. Nehalem has a LBR_SELECT
> MSR. However there are some constraints on it given it is shared
> by threads.
>
> LBR is only useful when sampling and therefore must be combined
> with a counter. LBR must also be configured to freeze on PMU
> interrupt.
>
> How is LBR going to be supported?

If there's interest then one sane way to support it would be to
expose it as a new sampling format (PERF_SAMPLE_*).

Regarding the constraints - if we choose to expose the branch-type
filtering capabilities of Nehalem, then that puts a constraint on
counter scheduling: two counters with conflicting constraints should
not be scheduled at once, but should be time-shared via the usual
mechanism.

The typical use-case would be to have no or compatible LBR filter
attributes between counters though - so having the conflicts is not
an issue as long as it works according to the usual model.
--
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/