linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -v3] perf, x86: try to handle unknown nmis with running perfctrs

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:	Thu, 19 Aug 2010 12:45:53 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
Cc:	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"fweisbec@...il.com" <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
	Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v3] perf, x86: try to handle unknown nmis with running
 perfctrs

On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 17:22 +0200, Robert Richter wrote:
> +       this_nmi = percpu_read(irq_stat.__nmi_count);
> +       if (handled > 1)
> +               goto mark_nmi;
> +       if ((__get_cpu_var(nmi).marked == this_nmi)
> +           && (__get_cpu_var(nmi).handled > 1))
> +               /*
> +                * We could have two subsequent back-to-back nmis: The
> +                * first handles more than one counter, the 2nd
> +                * handles only one counter and the 3rd handles no
> +                * counter.
> +                *
> +                * This is the 2nd nmi because the previous was
> +                * handling more than one counter. We will mark the
> +                * next (3rd) and then drop it if unhandled.
> +                */
> +               goto mark_nmi;
> +
> +       /* this may not trigger back-to-back nmis */
> +       return NOTIFY_STOP;
> +
> + mark_nmi:
> +       /* the next nmi could be a back-to-back nmi */
> +       __get_cpu_var(nmi).marked       = this_nmi + 1;
> +       __get_cpu_var(nmi).handled      = handled;
>  
>         return NOTIFY_STOP;
>  } 

I queued it with that part changed to:

+       this_nmi = percpu_read(irq_stat.__nmi_count);
+       if ((handled > 1) ||
+               /* the next nmi could be a back-to-back nmi */
+           ((__get_cpu_var(nmi).marked == this_nmi) &&
+            (__get_cpu_var(nmi).handled > 1))) {
+               /*
+                * We could have two subsequent back-to-back nmis: The
+                * first handles more than one counter, the 2nd
+                * handles only one counter and the 3rd handles no
+                * counter.
+                *
+                * This is the 2nd nmi because the previous was
+                * handling more than one counter. We will mark the
+                * next (3rd) and then drop it if unhandled.
+                */
+               __get_cpu_var(nmi).marked       = this_nmi + 1;
+               __get_cpu_var(nmi).handled      = handled;
+       }

        return NOTIFY_STOP;
 }


--
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/