linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf/x86: Fix overlap counter scheduling bug

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: <20161109155153.GQ3142@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Wed, 9 Nov 2016 16:51:53 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Vince Weaver <vince@...ter.net>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86: Fix overlap counter scheduling bug

On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 03:25:15PM +0100, Robert Richter wrote:
> On 08.11.16 19:27:39, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > The comment with EVENT_CONSTRAINT_OVERLAP states: "This is the case if
> > the counter mask of such an event is not a subset of any other counter
> > mask of a constraint with an equal or higher weight".
> > 
> > Esp. that latter part is of interest here I think, our overlapping mask
> > is 0x0e, that has 3 bits set and is the highest weight mask in on the
> > PMU, therefore it will be placed last. Can we still create a scenario
> > where we would need to rewind that?
> > 
> > The scenario for AMD Fam15h is we're having masks like:
> > 
> > 	0x3F -- 111111
> > 	0x38 -- 111000
> > 	0x07 -- 000111
> > 
> > 	0x09 -- 001001
> > 
> > And we mark 0x09 as overlapping, because it is not a direct subset of
> > 0x38 or 0x07 and has less weight than either of those. This means we'll
> > first try and place the 0x09 event, then try and place 0x38/0x07 events.
> > Now imagine we have:
> > 
> > 	3 * 0x07 + 0x09
> > 
> > and the initial pick for the 0x09 event is counter 0, then we'll fail to
> > place all 0x07 events. So we'll pop back, try counter 4 for the 0x09
> > event, and then re-try all 0x07 events, which will now work.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > But given, that in the uncore case, the overlapping event is the
> > heaviest mask, I don't think this can happen. Or did I overlook
> > something.... takes a bit to page all this back in.
> 
> Right, IMO 0xE mask may not be marked as overlapping. It is placed
> last and if there is no space left we are lost. There is no other
> combination or state we could try then. So the fix is to remove the
> overlapping bit for that counter, the state is then never saved.
> 
> This assumes there are no other counters than 0x3 and 0xc that overlap
> with 0xe. It becomes a bit tricky if there is another counter with the
> same or higher weight that overlaps with 0xe, e.g. 0x7.

As per a prior mail, the masks on the PMU in question are:

 0x01 - 0001
 0x03 - 0011
 0x0e - 1110
 0x0c - 1100

But since all the masks that have overlap (0xe -> {0xc,0x3}) and (0x3 ->
0x1) are of heavier weight, it should all work out I think.

So yes, something like the below (removing the OVERLAP bit) looks like
its sufficient.

---
 arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_snbep.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_snbep.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_snbep.c
index 272427700d48..e6832be714bc 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_snbep.c
+++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_snbep.c
@@ -669,7 +669,7 @@ static struct event_constraint snbep_uncore_cbox_constraints[] = {
 	UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x1c, 0xc),
 	UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x1d, 0xc),
 	UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x1e, 0xc),
-	EVENT_CONSTRAINT_OVERLAP(0x1f, 0xe, 0xff),
+	UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x1f, 0xe),
 	UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x21, 0x3),
 	UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x23, 0x3),
 	UNCORE_EVENT_CONSTRAINT(0x31, 0x3),