linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf, x86: Blacklist all MEM_*

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: <CABPqkBRxMj7QnaYtBKGEU2wRfS-KgiV3COoKAHCdJrj9BcJG=w@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 May 2013 18:26:27 +0200
From:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] perf, x86: Blacklist all MEM_*_RETIRED events for IVB

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 6:07 PM, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>> The difficulty is that we cannot use the shared_regs infrastructure because
>> the constraint is quite different. Here we need to say that if a mem event
>> uses cnt0 on one thread, then nothing can be using cnt0 on the other thread.
>> The current shared_regs infrastructure does not work on the counter level.
>> So we need to invent something else. It cannot even be extended.
>
> Just need a extra reg per counter, that is only triggered with that event.
>
Yes, it would be per counter and not per-event. But the check has to happen
after the assignment and each time we release the counter.

> -Andi
--
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/