linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] perf,x86: Fix event/group validation

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: <20150526132221.GP3644@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Tue, 26 May 2015 15:22:21 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
	"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
	Maria Dimakopoulou <maria.n.dimakopoulou@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] perf,x86: Fix event/group validation

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 05:25:59AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > IIRC the problem was that the copy from c2 into c1:
> >
> >         if (c1 && (c1->flags & PERF_X86_EVENT_DYNAMIC)) {
> >                 bitmap_copy(c1->idxmsk, c2->idxmsk, X86_PMC_IDX_MAX);
> >                 c1->weight = c2->weight;
> >                 c2 = c1;
> >         }
> >
> > is incomplete. For instance, flags is not copied, and some code down the
> > line might check that and get wrong flags.
> >
> Ok, now I remember this code. It has to do with incremental scheduling.
> Suppose E1, E2, E3 events where E1 is exclusive. The first call is
> for scheduling E1. It gets to get_event_constraint() which "allocates" a
> dynamic constraint. The second call  tries to schedule E1, E2. But the
> second time for E1, you already have the dynamic constraint allocated, so
> this code is reusing the constraint storage and just updates the bitmask
> and weight.
> 
> Now, that the storage is not actually dynamic (kmalloc'd), but taken from a
> fixed size array in cpuc, I believe we can simplify this and "re-allocate"
> the constraint for each incremental call to intel_get_event_constraints().
> Do you agree?

That would probably work, the whole incremental thing seems superfluous
to me.
--
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/