linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] perf: sharing of cpuctx between core and ibs PMU causes problems

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: <50235ED0.5010107@intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:55:12 +0800
From:	"Yan, Zheng" <zheng.z.yan@...el.com>
To:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
CC:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: [BUG] perf: sharing of cpuctx between core and ibs PMU causes
 problems

On 08/09/2012 08:51 AM, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I ran into a problem on my AMD box whereby I would hit the
> WARN_ON_ONCE(cpuctx->cgrp) in perf_cgroup_switch().
> 
> It took me a while to track this down. It turns out that the
> list_for_each_entry_rcu() loop had multiple iterations. That's
> normal, we have CPU PMU and IBS PMU.  But what caused
> the warning to fire is that both the core and IBS PMU were
> pointing to the same cpuctx struct. Thus, the cpuctx->cgrp
> was already set  in the second iteration.
> 
> Is the warning a false positive?

I think it's a false positive, I'm not sure.

> 
> In perf_pmu_register(), there is a search for a matching
> pmu->task_ctx_nr. Given that the field is pointing to
> perf_hw_context for both cpu and IBS PMU, there is
> a match and therefore the cpuctx are shared.
> 
> The question is: why do we have to share the cpuctx?
> 
> Note that the same issue probably exists with the Intel
> uncore PMU.

uncore PMU does not have this issue because uncore_pmu->task_ctx_nr
is 'perf_invalid_context'. find_pmu_context() always return NULL in
that case.

Regards
Yan, Zheng.

> 
> If we need to share, then the perf_cgroup_switch() code
> needs to change because, as it stands, it is doing the
> switching twice in this case.
> 


> Either way something looks wrong here.
> 
> Any idea?
> 

--
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/