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  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, 23 Feb 2017 10:07:01 -0500 (EST)
From:   Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>
To:     "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>
cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "Odzioba, Lukasz" <lukasz.odzioba@...el.com>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        "ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] perf/x86: fix event counter update issue

On Wed, 22 Feb 2017, Liang, Kan wrote:

> > So from what I understand, the issue is if we have an architecture with full-
> > width counters and we trigger a x86_perf_event_update() when bit
> > 47 is set?
> 
> No. It related to the counter width. The number of bits we can use should be
> 1 bit less than the total width. Otherwise, there will be problem.
> For big cores such as haswell, broadwell, skylake, the counter width is 48 bit.
> So we can only use 47 bits.
> For Silvermont and KNL, the counter width is only 32 bit I think. So we can only
> use 31 bits.

So on a machine with 48-bit counters I should just have a counting event
that counts to somewhere above 0x8000 0000 0001 and it should show 
problems?
Because I am unable to trigger this.

But I guess if anywhere along the line x86_perf_event_update() is run
then you start over?

I noticed your original reproducer bound the event to a core, is that 
needed to trigger this?

Can it happen on a fixed event or only a genearl purpose event?

> > So if I have a test that runs in a loop for 2^48 retired instructions (which
> > takes ~12 hours on a recent machine) and then reads the results, they
> > might be wrong?
> 
> It only needs several minutes to reproduce the issue on SLM/KNL.

Yes, but I only have machines with 48-bit counters.  So it's going to take 
256 times as long as on a machine with 40-bit counters.

I have an assembly loop that can consistently generate 2 instructions/cycle
(I'd be glad to hear suggestions for events that count faster) and on
a broadwell-ep machine it still takes at least 7 hours or so to get up
to 0x800000000000.

Vince

Powered by blists - more mailing lists