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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2017 17:37:10 +0530 From: Ganapatrao Kulkarni <gpkulkarni@...il.com> To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> Cc: Ganapatrao Kulkarni <ganapatrao.kulkarni@...ium.com>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>, jnair@...iumnetworks.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: perf: Count EL2 events if either of kernel and hyp are not excluded Hi Will, On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 04:10:55PM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote: >> commit d98ecda (arm64: perf: Count EL2 events if the kernel is running in HYP) >> is returning error for perf syscall with mixed attribute set for exclude_kernel >> and exlude_hv. >> >> This change is breaking some applications (observed with hhvm) when >> ran with VHE enabled. Adding change to enable EL2 event counting, >> if either of or both of exclude_kernel and exlude_hv are not set. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ganapatrao Kulkarni <ganapatrao.kulkarni@...ium.com> >> --- >> arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 19 ++++++++++++------- >> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > Hmm. When we have VHE, we can't distinguish between hypervisor and kernel, > so this patch doesn't seem right to me. The code currently requires > both exclude_kernel and exclude_hv to be clear before we enable profiling > EL2, otherwise we're failing to exclude samples that were asked to be > excluded. The application cant differentiate that kernel is running in EL2/VHE or in EL1 when VHE=1, is it makes sense to enable EL2 event counting when there is request from application to either include kernel or hypervisor event count, since both are same. IMO, it is not appropriate to have different application behaviour when kernel booted with VHE=0/1 > > Will > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c >> index daf95919..ea5848a 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c >> @@ -871,15 +871,20 @@ static int armv8pmu_set_event_filter(struct hw_perf_event *event, >> >> if (attr->exclude_idle) >> return -EPERM; >> - if (is_kernel_in_hyp_mode() && >> - attr->exclude_kernel != attr->exclude_hv) >> - return -EINVAL; >> + if (is_kernel_in_hyp_mode()) { >> + /* include EL2 events, if either of not excluded */ >> + if ((attr->exclude_kernel != attr->exclude_hv) || >> + !attr->exclude_kernel || >> + !attr->exclude_hv) >> + config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_INCLUDE_EL2; >> + } else { >> + if (attr->exclude_kernel) >> + config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_EXCLUDE_EL1; >> + if (!attr->exclude_hv) >> + config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_INCLUDE_EL2; >> + } >> if (attr->exclude_user) >> config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_EXCLUDE_EL0; >> - if (!is_kernel_in_hyp_mode() && attr->exclude_kernel) >> - config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_EXCLUDE_EL1; >> - if (!attr->exclude_hv) >> - config_base |= ARMV8_PMU_INCLUDE_EL2; >> >> /* >> * Install the filter into config_base as this is used to >> -- >> 1.8.1.4 >> thanks Ganapat
Powered by blists - more mailing lists