linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf: return ENOENT instead of ENOTSUPP

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, 11 Jun 2015 15:02:55 +0200
From:	Hendrik Brueckner <brueckner@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Hendrik Brueckner <brueckner@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf: return ENOENT instead of ENOTSUPP

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:25:01PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 11:59 +0200, Hendrik Brueckner wrote:
> > The ENOTSUPP (which actually should be EOPNOTSUPP for user space) does not
> > trigger a fallback event selection, for example, by perf record.
> > If hardware support for the cycles perf event is available, but the hardware
> > does not provide interrupts, returning ENOTSUPP causes perf to end.  Returning
> > ENOENT causes the perf tool to fallback to a software-based cycle PMU that
> > supports interrupts.
> > 
> > The commit 53b25335dd ("perf: Disable sampled events if no PMU interrupt")
> > introduced that incompatible change.
> 
> That's 3.16

Correct... I recently encountered the problem.

> 
> >  		if (event->pmu->capabilities & PERF_PMU_CAP_NO_INTERRUPT) {
> > -			err = -ENOTSUPP;
> > +			err = -ENOENT;
> >  			goto err_alloc;
> >  		}
> >  	}
> 
> And now you would be changing an API that's been around for at least 4
> releases.

Well... the behavior before 53b25335dd was differently in this regard.  Of
course, the API changed 4 releases ago.   The question here is rather was
this desired or not.  In my mind I considered this problem as a regression.

> 
> Also, I really think -ENOENT is the wrong return here, you're asking for
> things that's not supported, not for something that's not there.

So looks like -ENOTSUPP is the desired API now.  So the problem I'd like
to solve is that there are two different hardware PMUs that support the
"cycles" event.  Just one of them supports sampling of cycles, the other not.

In the past (prior to 3.16), the perf tool tried several PMUs if -ENOENT
was returned.  With 3.16, -ENOTSUPP is returned (which actually should be
-EOPNOTSUPP but different story) and the perf tool exits.

So the question is: what is the desired behavior?

A solution towards the "fallback-behavior" would be to change
perf_init_event() and consider the sampling/non-sampling criteria (in general
pmu->capabilities) when looking for a matching PMU to serve the event?

Thanks and kind regards,
  Hendrik

-- 
Hendrik Brueckner
brueckner@...ux.vnet.ibm.com      | IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH
Linux on System z Development     | Schoenaicher Str. 220, 71032 Boeblingen


IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Martina Koederitz
Geschaeftsfuehrung: Dirk Wittkopp
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Boeblingen
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294

--
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/