linux-kernel - Re: [tip:perf/urgent] perf, x86: Catch spurious interrupts after disabling counters

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: <20100929170924.GR13563@erda.amd.com>
Date:	Wed, 29 Sep 2010 19:09:24 +0200
From:	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>
To:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
CC:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
	"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"yinghai@...nel.org" <yinghai@...nel.org>,
	"andi@...stfloor.org" <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"ying.huang@...el.com" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
	"fweisbec@...il.com" <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	"ming.m.lin@...el.com" <ming.m.lin@...el.com>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"dzickus@...hat.com" <dzickus@...hat.com>,
	"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [tip:perf/urgent] perf, x86: Catch spurious interrupts after
 disabling counters

On 29.09.10 12:00:35, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> But you cannot clear it in x86_pmu_stop() because otherwise it
> turns into active_mask[]. My understanding is that you need
> to remember this counter has been active at some point in the
> past.
> 
> My point is that you cannot keep this around forever. After a
> "while" it becomes stale and you have to remove it otherwise
> you may wrongly increment handled.

The mask is cleared with the next nmi.

> 
> Here is a scenario:
> 
> event A -> counter 0, cpuc->running = 0x1 active_mask = 0x1
> move A
> event A -> counter 1, cpuc->running = 0x3, active_mask = 0x2
> 
> No interrupt, we are just counting for a short period.
> Then, you get an NMI interrupt, suppose it is not generated
> by the PMU, it is destined for another handler.
> 
> For i=0, you have (active_mask & 0x1) == 0, but (running & 0x1) == 1,
> you mark the interrupt as handled, i.e., you swallow it, the actual
> handler never gets it.

Yes, then changing the counters you will get *one* nmi with 2 handled
counters. This is valid as the disabled counter could generate a
spurious interrupt. But you get (handled == 2) instead of (handled ==
1) which is not much impact. All following nmis have (handled == 1)
then again.

-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/