linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 12/20] x86: perf: intel

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:	Fri, 24 Oct 2014 15:01:49 +0300
From:	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, kan.liang@...el.com,
	adrian.hunter@...el.com, acme@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 12/20] x86: perf: intel_pt: Intel PT PMU driver

Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:

> On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 10:49:33AM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
>> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> writes:
>> 
>> > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 04:45:40PM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
>> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
>> >> @@ -1528,6 +1528,14 @@ again:
>> >>  	}
>> >>  
>> >>  	/*
>> >> +	 * Intel PT
>> >> +	 */
>> >> +	if (__test_and_clear_bit(55, (unsigned long *)&status)) {
>> >> +		handled++;
>> >> +		intel_pt_interrupt();
>> >> +	}
>> >> +
>> >
>> > How does the PT interrupt interact with the regular PMI? In particular
>> > does it respect stuff like FREEZE_ON_PMI etc?
>> 
>> It ignores the FREEZE_ON_PMI bit. I stop it by hand inside the PMI
>> handler, so you can see parts of the handler in the trace if you're
>> tracing the kernel.
>
> Urgh, horrid that. Routing something to the same interrupt, sharing
> status registers but not observing the same semantics for the interrupt
> is a massive fail.

I can't pretend to understand the logic behind this either.

> IIRC Andi was planning to start using FREEZE_ON_PMI to avoid the MSR
> writes in intel_pmu_{disable,enable}_all(), this interrupt not actually
> respecting that makes that non-trivial.
>
> We already use FREEZE_ON_PMI for LBR, but for now PT and LBR are
> mutually exclusive so that's not a problem, if we ever get those working
> together this needs to get fixed.

Agreed.

Regards,
--
Alex
--
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/