linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] perf, x86, lbr: Demand proper privileges for PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH

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: <30065.1368828892@ale.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date:	Sat, 18 May 2013 08:14:52 +1000
From:	Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>
To:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>,
	"benh@...nel.crashing.org" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Linux PPC dev <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] perf, x86, lbr: Demand proper privileges for PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_KERNEL

Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 09:32:08PM +1000, Michael Neuling wrote:
> >> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> >> > Wouldn't it be mostly conditional branches that are the primary control flow
> >> > and can get predicted wrong? I mean, I'm sure someone will miss-predict an
> >> > unconditional branch but its not like we care about people with such
> >> > afflictions do we?
> >>
> >> You could mispredict the target address of a computed goto.  You'd know
> >> it was taken but not know target address until later in the pipeline.
> >
> > Oh right, computed targets could indeed be mis predicted. I was more thinking
> > about jumps with immediate values.
> >
> >> On this, the POWER8 branch history buffer tells us two things about the
> >> prediction status.
> >>   1) if the branch was predicted taken/not taken correctly
> >>   2) if the target address was predicted correctly or not (for computed
> >>      gotos only)
> >> So we'd actually like more prediction bits too :-D
> >
> > So if I understand this right, 1) maps to the predicted flags we have; 2)
> > would be new stuff?
> >
> > We don't really have anything like that on x86, but I suppose if you make the
> > thing optional and present a 'useful' use-case implemented in userspace code
> > we could take it :-)
> >
> >> > Anyway, since PPC people thought it worth baking into hardware,
> >> > presumably they have a compelling use case. Mikey could you see if you
> >> > can retrieve that from someone in the know? It might be interesting.
> >>
> >> I don't think we can mispredict a non-conditional non-computed but I'll
> >> have to check with the HW folks.
> >
> > I was mostly wondering about the use-case for the conditional filter. Stephane
> > didn't think it useful, clearly your hardware guys thought different :-)
> 
> From my experience talking with compiler people, they care about ALL
> the branches and not the conditional so much. They use LBR to do basic
> block profiling.

OK.  I don't have a good handle on what's useful for compilers or JITs
right now.  I'm just plumbing through what's possible.

Mikey

--
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/