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: <20150105193120.GA9167@sundance.lan>
Date:	Mon, 5 Jan 2015 19:31:20 +0000
From:	Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@...aro.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.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 Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 03:57:39PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 04:24:26PM +0000, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> > 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?

In truth because I didn't look at the x86 code... there is an existing
halving of max_period in the arm code and that was enough to satisfy me
that halving max_period was reasonable.

Predividing max_period looks to me like it would work for ARM too although I
don't think we could blame hardware insanity for doing so ;-).

Will: Do you want me to update this?

-- 
Daniel Thompson (STMicroelectronics) <daniel.thompson@...com>
1000 Aztec West, Almondsbury, Bristol, BS32 4SQ. 01454 462659

If a car is a horseless carriage then is a motorcycle a horseless horse?
--
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/