linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] perf: Tighten (and fix) the grouping condition

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: <20150123150716.GN2896@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Fri, 23 Jan 2015 16:07:16 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:	"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"vincent.weaver@...ne.edu" <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
	"eranian@...il.com" <eranian@...il.com>,
	"jolsa@...hat.com" <jolsa@...hat.com>,
	"torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] perf: Tighten (and fix) the grouping condition

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 03:02:12PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:52:00PM +0000, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > The fix from 9fc81d87420d ("perf: Fix events installation during
> > moving group") was incomplete in that it failed to recognise that
> > creating a group with events for different CPUs is semantically
> > broken -- they cannot be co-scheduled.
> > 
> > Furthermore, it leads to real breakage where, when we create an event
> > for CPU Y and then migrate it to form a group on CPU X, the code gets
> > confused where the counter is programmed -- triggered by the fuzzer.
> > 
> > Fix this by tightening the rules for creating groups. Only allow
> > grouping of counters that can be co-scheduled in the same context.
> > This means for the same task and/or the same cpu.
> 
> It seems this would still allow you to group CPU-affine software and
> uncore events, which also doesn't make sense: the software events will
> count on a single CPU while the uncore events aren't really CPU-affine.
> 
> Which isn't anything against this patch, but probably something we
> should tighten up too.

Indeed, that would need a wee bit of extra infrastructure though; as we
cannot currently distinguish between regular cpuctx and uncore like
things.

Good spotting though.
--
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/