linux-kernel - Re: [regression 2.6.39-rc2][bisected] "perf, x86: P4 PMU - Read proper MSR register to catch" and NMIs

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, 14 Apr 2011 13:27:33 +0400
From:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, maciej.rutecki@...il.com,
	Shaun Ruffell <sruffell@...ium.com>,
	Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [regression 2.6.39-rc2][bisected] "perf, x86: P4 PMU - Read
 proper MSR register to catch" and NMIs

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
...
>> If there is no counters overflowed I believe we should not poke LVTPC until
>> we sure NMI comes from it (and counter overflow is the only sign that NMI
>> came from LVTPC as far as I may say, and I see also a possibility for race if
>> counter signal reaches LVTPC and it is being processed inside apic chip
>> {which might take some time too before real NMI signal appears in cpu} and as
>> result hard to tell what we get in output -- double nmi again or something
>> else).
>
> Well, we unmasked unconditionally before. If we unmask conditionally now, we
> risk not unmasking. We risk a completely stuck PMU (there wont ever come *any*
> NMI from it if we ever forget to unmask) versus spurious NMIs.
>
> Maybe we can do it - but it will need a lot of testing on a lot of CPU types to
> make sure there's no other CPU quirks in this area ...
>
> So unless the conditional unmasking fixes a real bug (in kgdb or elsewhere)
> lets unmask unconditionally now to fix the P4 regression in .39 - and queue up
> a *separate* patch that moves it even further down and makes it conditional -
> but queue that up for .40.
>
> Thanks,
>
>        Ingo
>

OK. Ingo I'll send a patch from Don with all tested-by (including me) and my ack
as only get back home. (I don't mind if Don beat me on this ;)
--
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/