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: <20100804100116.GH26154@erda.amd.com>
Date:	Wed, 4 Aug 2010 12:01:16 +0200
From:	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
To:	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>
CC:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
	"fweisbec@...il.com" <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: A question of perf NMI handler

On 04.08.10 05:21:10, Lin Ming wrote:

> With nmi_watchdog enabled, perf_event_nmi_handler always return
> NOTIFY_STOP(active_events > 0), and the notifier call chain will not
> call further.
> 
> If it was not perf NMI, does the perf nmi handler may stop the real NMI
> handler get called because NOTIFY_STOP is returned??

There is no general mechanism for recording the NMI source (except if
it was external triggered, e.g. by the southbridge). Also, all nmis
are mapped to NMI vector 2 and therefore there is no way to find out
the reason by using apic mask registers.

Now, if multiple perfctrs trigger an nmi, it may happen that a handler
has nothing to do because the counter was already handled by the
previous one. Thus, it is valid to have unhandled nmis caused by
perfctrs.

So, with counters enabled we always have to return stop for *all* nmis
as we cannot detect that it was an perfctr nmi. Otherwise we could
trigger an unhandled nmi. To ensure that all other nmi handlers are
called, the perfctr's nmi handler must have the lowest priority. Then,
the handler will be the last in the chain.

-Robert

-- 
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Operating System Research Center

--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ