linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] perf: honoring cpuid for number of fixed counters

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]

Date:	Thu, 04 Jun 2015 12:35:08 +0200
From:	Imre Palik <imrep.amz@...il.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Palik, Imre" <imrep@...zon.de>,
	Anthony Liguori <aliguori@...zon.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] perf: honoring cpuid for number of fixed counters

On 06/03/15 10:36, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 10:03:48AM +0200, Imre Palik wrote:
>> From: "Palik, Imre" <imrep@...zon.de>
>>
>> perf doesn't seem to honor the number of fixed counters specified by cpuid
>> leaf 0xa.  It always assume that intel CPUs have at least 3 fixed counters.
>>
>> So if some of the fixed counters are masked out by the hypervisor, it still
>> tries to check/set them.  This is good for testing the masking code in the
>> hypervisor, but not so nice otherwise.
>>
>> This patch makes perf pehave somewhat nicer when the number of fixed
>> counters is less than three.
> 
>> @@ -3042,13 +3042,6 @@ __init int intel_pmu_init(void)
>>  
>>  	x86_pmu.max_pebs_events		= min_t(unsigned, MAX_PEBS_EVENTS, x86_pmu.num_counters);
>>  
>> -	/*
>> -	 * Quirk: v2 perfmon does not report fixed-purpose events, so
>> -	 * assume at least 3 events:
>> -	 */
>> -	if (version > 1)
>> -		x86_pmu.num_counters_fixed = max((int)edx.split.num_counters_fixed, 3);
>> -
>>  	if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_PDCM)) {
>>  		u64 capabilities;
> 
> So the problem is that there is real hardware out there that gets the
> CPUID stuff wrong, and this patch penalizes that by then not using the
> fixed counters.

I haven't thought about this.  Thanks.

> Further, the Intel Arch PerfMon v2 spec actually specifies there to be 3
> fixed function counters.
> 
> So anything that says it is v2+ and does not have the 3, is non
> compliant.
>
> I would suggest you go fix your hypervisor.

If I set up the hypervisor to advertise Arch PerfMon v1 (0 fixed counters), then  without my patch, perf still tries to use fixed counters.  So something is clearly broken here.

> Lacking that option; you could probe the MSRs to see if they're really
> there using wrmsr_safe() or something like that -- see
> check_hw_exists().

I'll send something along these lines soon.
--
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/