linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] perf fixes

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: <CABPqkBRHt=84gZ2-g-CC2jmV5_pnZ9qJA2bne_oXsLmrFhOomw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:01:29 +0100
From:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] perf fixes

On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com> wrote:
>>
>> I bet if you force the affinity of your perf record to be on
>> a CPU other than CPU0, you will not get the crash.
>>
>> This is what I am seeing now. I appears on resume,
>> CPU0 hotplug callbacks for perf_events are not invoked
>> leaving DS_AREA MSR to 0.
>>
>> Can you confirm on your machine?
>
> I'm not even going to bother confirming it, because I think you're
> right, and I think the reason is clear: the DS initialization code
> uses the CPU_UP notifiers.
>
Ok, I instrumented the pebs_enable() function and I confirm that
DS_AREA=0 on resume.

So what seems broken here for me is that on suspend, the cpu notifier
ends up calling fini_debug_store() to clear DS_AREA for CPU0. But
on resume, the same notifier does NOT call the init_debug_store().
I don't understand this asymmetry. You either do neither or you do
both.


> And that's sufficient for CPU hotplug, which is what suspend/resume
> ends up doing for all but the boot CPU. But the boot CPU is not
> hotplugged.
>
> Using CPU_UP notifiers is wrong, and they get called too late anyway.
>
> The code should use a real resume method. Or, better yet, just do it
> right, and do it from __restore_processor_state().
>
> Those f*cking CPU notifiers are a pain in the ass, and the tend to be
> invariably broken, and they have their own idiotic hacks that are
> equally broken (ie that x86_pmu_notifier() thing seems to make up its
> own suspend/resume with
> "x86_pmu.cpu_prepare/cpu_starting/cpu_dying/cpu_dead" things.
>
> I guess we could make the BP do a fake cpu notifier thing around the
> suspend of the boot processor as well, but most of the per-CPU stuff
> seems to be perfectly fine without it (ie mtrr, apic, etc etc all use
> the suspend/resume infrastructure) and doesn't need that kind of
> stuff.
>
>                 Linus
--
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/