linux-kernel - Re: [tip:perf/urgent] perf/x86/intel: Fix PMI handling for Intel PT

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150624144750.GJ18673@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:47:50 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	mingo@...nel.org, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com,
	hpa@...or.com, bp@...en8.de, brgerst@...il.com,
	luto@...capital.net, oleg@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de, dvlasenk@...hat.com
Cc:	linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:perf/urgent] perf/x86/intel: Fix PMI handling for Intel PT

Subject: perf,x86: Fix active_events imbalance

Commit 1b7b938f1817 ("perf/x86/intel: Fix PMI handling for Intel PT")
conditionally increments active_events in x86_add_exclusive() but
unconditionally decrements in x86_del_exclusive().

These extra decrements can lead to the situation where active_events is
zero and thus the PMI handler is 'disabled' while we have active events
on the PMU generating PMIs.

This leads to a truckload of:

  Uhhuh. NMI received for unknown reason 21 on CPU 28.
  Do you have a strange power saving mode enabled?
  Dazed and confused, but trying to continue

messages and generally messes up perf.

Remove the condition on the increment, double increment balanced by a
double decrement is perfectly fine.

Restructure the code a little bit to make the unconditional inc a bit
more natural.

Fixes: 1b7b938f1817 ("perf/x86/intel: Fix PMI handling for Intel PT")
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c |   36 +++++++++++++-----------------------
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
index 5801a14..3658de4 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event.c
@@ -357,34 +357,24 @@ void x86_release_hardware(void)
  */
 int x86_add_exclusive(unsigned int what)
 {
-	int ret = -EBUSY, i;
-
-	if (atomic_inc_not_zero(&x86_pmu.lbr_exclusive[what]))
-		return 0;
+	int i;
 
-	mutex_lock(&pmc_reserve_mutex);
-	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(x86_pmu.lbr_exclusive); i++) {
-		if (i != what && atomic_read(&x86_pmu.lbr_exclusive[i]))
-			goto out;
+	if (!atomic_inc_not_zero(&x86_pmu.lbr_exclusive[what])) {
+		mutex_lock(&pmc_reserve_mutex);
+		for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(x86_pmu.lbr_exclusive); i++) {
+			if (i != what && atomic_read(&x86_pmu.lbr_exclusive[i]))
+				goto fail_unlock;
+		}
+		atomic_inc(&x86_pmu.lbr_exclusive[what]);
+		mutex_unlock(&pmc_reserve_mutex);
 	}
 
-	atomic_inc(&x86_pmu.lbr_exclusive[what]);
-	ret = 0;
+	atomic_inc(&active_events);
+	return 0;
 
-out:
+fail_unlock:
 	mutex_unlock(&pmc_reserve_mutex);
-
-	/*
-	 * Assuming that all exclusive events will share the PMI handler
-	 * (which checks active_events for whether there is work to do),
-	 * we can bump active_events counter right here, except for
-	 * x86_lbr_exclusive_lbr events that go through x86_pmu_event_init()
-	 * path, which already bumps active_events for them.
-	 */
-	if (!ret && what != x86_lbr_exclusive_lbr)
-		atomic_inc(&active_events);
-
-	return ret;
+	return -EBUSY;
 }
 
 void x86_del_exclusive(unsigned int what)
--
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/