| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20160622123326.GA22429@yury-N73SV>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 15:33:26 +0300
From: Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>
To: Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>,
Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] tools/perf: Fix the mask in regs_dump__printf and
print_sample_iregs
On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 09:20:43AM +0530, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday 21 June 2016 09:05 PM, Yury Norov wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 08:26:40PM +0530, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
> >> When decoding the perf_regs mask in regs_dump__printf(),
> >> we loop through the mask using find_first_bit and find_next_bit functions.
> >> "mask" is of type "u64", but sent as a "unsigned long *" to
> >> lib functions along with sizeof().
> >>
> >> While the exisitng code works fine in most of the case,
> >> the logic is broken when using a 32bit perf on a 64bit kernel (Big Endian).
> >> When reading u64 using (u32 *)(&val)[0], perf (lib/find_*_bit()) assumes it gets
> >> lower 32bits of u64 which is wrong. Proposed fix is to swap the words
> >> of the u64 to handle this case. This is _not_ endianess swap.
> >>
> >> Suggested-by: Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>
> >> Cc: Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>
> >> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> >> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> >> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
> >> Cc: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
> >> Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
> >> Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
> >> Cc: Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>
> >> Cc: Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>
> >> Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
> >> Signed-off-by: Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >> ---
> >> Changelog v2:
> >> 1)Moved the swap code to a common function
> >> 2)Added more comments in the code
> >>
> >> Changelog v1:
> >> 1)updated commit message and patch subject
> >> 2)Add the fix to print_sample_iregs() in builtin-script.c
> >>
> >> tools/include/linux/bitmap.h | 9 +++++++++
> > What about include/linux/bitmap.h? I think we'd place it there first.
>
> Wanted to handle that separately.
>
> >
> >> tools/perf/builtin-script.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
> >> tools/perf/util/session.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
> >> 3 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/tools/include/linux/bitmap.h b/tools/include/linux/bitmap.h
> >> index 28f5493da491..79998b26eb04 100644
> >> --- a/tools/include/linux/bitmap.h
> >> +++ b/tools/include/linux/bitmap.h
> >> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
> >> #define _PERF_BITOPS_H
> >>
> >> #include <string.h>
> >> +#include <limits.h>
> >> #include <linux/bitops.h>
> >>
> >> #define DECLARE_BITMAP(name,bits) \
> >> @@ -22,6 +23,14 @@ void __bitmap_or(unsigned long *dst, const unsigned long *bitmap1,
> >> #define small_const_nbits(nbits) \
> >> (__builtin_constant_p(nbits) && (nbits) <= BITS_PER_LONG)
> >>
> >> +static inline void bitmap_from_u64(unsigned long *_mask, u64 mask)
> > Inline is not required. Some people don't not like it. Underscored parameter in
>
> Not sure why you say that. IIUC we can avoid a function call overhead,
> also rest of the functions in the file likes it.
Documentation/CodingStyle, Chapter 15.
But I was wrong here for 3 reasons.
1. Your function is exactly 3 lines of code;
2. Condition is calculated at compile time;
3. Code around uses inline, and your patch should not be exception.
Anyway, inline is only hint for GCC. And you cannot expect overhead
elimination in every specific case. If you really need inline, use
__always_inline directive.
> > function declaration is not the best idea as well. Try:
> > static void bitmap_from_u64(unsigned long *bitmap, u64 mask)
> >
> >> +{
> >> + _mask[0] = mask & ULONG_MAX;
> >> +
> >> + if (sizeof(mask) > sizeof(unsigned long))
> >> + _mask[1] = mask >> 32;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> static inline void bitmap_zero(unsigned long *dst, int nbits)
> >> {
> >> if (small_const_nbits(nbits))
> >> diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-script.c b/tools/perf/builtin-script.c
> >> index e3ce2f34d3ad..73928310fd91 100644
> >> --- a/tools/perf/builtin-script.c
> >> +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-script.c
> >> @@ -412,11 +412,25 @@ static void print_sample_iregs(struct perf_sample *sample,
> >> struct regs_dump *regs = &sample->intr_regs;
> >> uint64_t mask = attr->sample_regs_intr;
> >> unsigned i = 0, r;
> >> + unsigned long _mask[sizeof(mask)/sizeof(unsigned long)];
> > If we start with it, I think we'd hide declaration machinery as well:
> >
> > #define DECLARE_L64_BITMAP(__name) unsigned long __name[sizeof(u64)/sizeof(unsigned long)]
> > or
> > #define L64_BITMAP_SIZE (sizeof(u64)/sizeof(unsigned long))
> >
> > Or both :) Whatever you prefer.
>
> ok
>
> >
> >>
> >> if (!regs)
> >> return;
> >>
> >> - for_each_set_bit(r, (unsigned long *) &mask, sizeof(mask) * 8) {
> >> + /*
> >> + * Since u64 is passed as 'unsigned long *', check
> >> + * to see whether we need to swap words within u64.
> >> + * Reason being, in 32 bit big endian userspace on a
> >> + * 64bit kernel, 'unsigned long' is 32 bits.
> >> + * When reading u64 using (u32 *)(&val)[0] and (u32 *)(&val)[1],
> >> + * we will get wrong value for the mask. This is what
> >> + * find_first_bit() and find_next_bit() is doing.
> >> + * Issue here is "(u32 *)(&val)[0]" gets upper 32 bits of u64,
> >> + * but perf assumes it gets lower 32bits of u64. Hence the check
> >> + * and swap.
> >> + */
> >> + bitmap_from_u64(_mask, mask);
> >> + for_each_set_bit(r, _mask, sizeof(mask) * 8) {
> >> u64 val = regs->regs[i++];
> >> printf("%5s:0x%"PRIx64" ", perf_reg_name(r), val);
> >> }
> >> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/session.c b/tools/perf/util/session.c
> >> index 5214974e841a..1337b1c73f82 100644
> >> --- a/tools/perf/util/session.c
> >> +++ b/tools/perf/util/session.c
> >> @@ -940,8 +940,22 @@ static void branch_stack__printf(struct perf_sample *sample)
> >> static void regs_dump__printf(u64 mask, u64 *regs)
> >> {
> >> unsigned rid, i = 0;
> >> + unsigned long _mask[sizeof(mask)/sizeof(unsigned long)];
> >>
> >> - for_each_set_bit(rid, (unsigned long *) &mask, sizeof(mask) * 8) {
> >> + /*
> >> + * Since u64 is passed as 'unsigned long *', check
> >> + * to see whether we need to swap words within u64.
> >> + * Reason being, in 32 bit big endian userspace on a
> >> + * 64bit kernel, 'unsigned long' is 32 bits.
> >> + * When reading u64 using (u32 *)(&val)[0] and (u32 *)(&val)[1],
> >> + * we will get wrong value for the mask. This is what
> >> + * find_first_bit() and find_next_bit() is doing.
> >> + * Issue here is "(u32 *)(&val)[0]" gets upper 32 bits of u64,
> >> + * but perf assumes it gets lower 32bits of u64. Hence the check
> >> + * and swap.
> >> + */
> > Identical comments... I'd prefer to see it in commit message, or
> > better in function description. For me it's pretty straightforward in
> > understanding what happens here in-place without comments.
>
> I would prefer the comments here. When reading/understanding
> the code, we can avoid a jump to another file :).
>
> Maddy
>
> >> + bitmap_from_u64(_mask, mask);
> >> + for_each_set_bit(rid, _mask, sizeof(mask) * 8) {
> >> u64 val = regs[i++];
> >>
> >> printf(".... %-5s 0x%" PRIx64 "\n",
> >> --
> >> 1.9.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists