[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141019213534.GG23531@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 23:35:34 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Erik Bosman <ebn310@....vu.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC 5/5] x86,perf: Only allow rdpmc if a perf_event is mapped
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 05:00:56PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> The current cap_user_rdpmc code seems rather confused to me. On x86,
> *all* events set cap_user_rdpmc if the global rdpmc control is set.
> But only x86_pmu events define .event_idx, so amd uncore events won't
> actually expose their rdpmc index to userspace.
>
> Would it make more sense to add a flag PERF_X86_EVENT_RDPMC_PERMITTED
> that gets set on all events created while rdpmc == 1, to change
> x86_pmu_event_idx to do something like:
>
> if (event->hw.flags & PERF_X86_EVENT_RDPMC_PERMITTED)
> return event->hw.event_base_rdpmc + 1;
> else
> return 0;
>
> and to change arch_perf_update_userpage cap_user_rdpmc to match
> PERF_X86_EVENT_RDPMC_PERMITTED?
>
> Then we could ditch the static key and greatly simplify writes to the
> rdpmc flag by just counting PERF_X86_EVENT_RDPMC_PERMITTED events.
>
> This would be a user-visible change on AMD, and I can't test it.
I have AMD hardware to test this. But yes something like that seems
fine.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists