linux-kernel - [PATCH 3.19-rc1 v3] arm: perf: Prevent wraparound during overflow

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: <1419241185-31317-1-git-send-email-daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
Date:	Mon, 22 Dec 2014 09:39:45 +0000
From:	Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
To:	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc:	Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	patches@...aro.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@...aro.org>
Subject: [PATCH 3.19-rc1 v3] arm: perf: Prevent wraparound during overflow

If the overflow threshold for a counter is set above or near the
0xffffffff boundary then the kernel may lose track of the overflow
causing only events that occur *after* the overflow to be recorded.
Specifically the problem occurs when the value of the performance counter
overtakes its original programmed value due to wrap around.

Typical solutions to this problem are either to avoid programming in
values likely to be overtaken or to treat the overflow bit as the 33rd
bit of the counter.

Its somewhat fiddly to refactor the code to correctly handle the 33rd bit
during irqsave sections (context switches for example) so instead we take
the simpler approach of avoiding values likely to be overtaken.

We set the limit to half of max_period because this matches the limit
imposed in __hw_perf_event_init(). This causes a doubling of the interrupt
rate for large threshold values, however even with a very fast counter
ticking at 4GHz the interrupt rate would only be ~1Hz.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
---

Notes:
    v3:

    * Rebased on 3.19-rc1 and dropped the arm64 patches (which are
      already upstream).

    v2:

    * Remove the redundant cast to s64 (Will Deacon).

 arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c | 10 ++++++++--
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c b/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c
index f7c65adaa428..557e128e4df0 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c
@@ -116,8 +116,14 @@ int armpmu_event_set_period(struct perf_event *event)
 		ret = 1;
 	}

-	if (left > (s64)armpmu->max_period)
-		left = armpmu->max_period;
+	/*
+	 * Limit the maximum period to prevent the counter value
+	 * from overtaking the one we are about to program. In
+	 * effect we are reducing max_period to account for
+	 * interrupt latency (and we are being very conservative).
+	 */
+	if (left > (armpmu->max_period >> 1))
+		left = armpmu->max_period >> 1;

 	local64_set(&hwc->prev_count, (u64)-left);

--
1.9.3

--
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/