linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] 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: <20150105145739.GU30905@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Mon, 5 Jan 2015 15:57:39 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
Cc:	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	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: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm: perf: Prevent wraparound during overflow

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 04:24:26PM +0000, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> 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>
> ---
>  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 266cba46db3e..ab68833c1e31 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/perf_event.c
> @@ -115,8 +115,14 @@ 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;

On x86 we simply half max_period, why did you choose to do differently?
--
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/