linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] perf, intel: Don't touch MSR_IA32

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:	Wed, 12 Sep 2012 20:50:28 +0200
From:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] perf, intel: Don't touch MSR_IA32_DEBUGCTLMSR from
 NMI context

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 20:00 +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2012-09-12 at 19:37 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> >> Ah, so I do think EIO will re-enable LBR,
>> >
>> > OK, it does not, but the:
>> >
>> >>  also the handler is wrapped in
>> >> x86_pmu::{dis,en}able_all() which does end up calling
>> >> intel_pmu_lbr_{dis,en}able_all().
>> >
>> > Thing does the re-enable for us,
>> >
>>
>> >>  However that leaves the MSR in the
>> >> exact same state on exit as it was on enter, so that's not a problem for
>> >> the: read-modify-write change.
>> >
>> > in a safe way.
>> Well, I think it does even when we have to stop events (x86_pmu_stop)
>> because the buffer is full. Looks like we always re-enable lbr.
>
> How so, without the proposed patch, the intel_pmu_disable_event() can do
> intel_pmu_lbr_disable() which decrements cpuc->lbr_users, so the final
> intel_pmu_enable_all()->intel_pmu_lbr_enable_all() will be a NOP,
> leaving LBR disabled, where we entered the NMI with LBR enabled.
>
You're right. I looked at the wrong x86_pmu struct.
So yes, it is not symmetrical in all cases. So that's a problem
for the race condition.

>>  So looks like the handler is a wash for debugctl.
>
> As for BTS, it looks like we don't throttle the thing at all, so we
> shouldn't ever get to the asymmetric thing, right?
No you do, in the same function:
static void intel_pmu_disable_event(struct perf_event *event)
{
        struct hw_perf_event *hwc = &event->hw;
        struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc = &__get_cpu_var(cpu_hw_events);

        if (unlikely(hwc->idx == INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED_BTS)) {
                intel_pmu_disable_bts();
                intel_pmu_drain_bts_buffer();
                return;
        }
--
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/