linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.14 095/217] perf bench: Fix numa report output code

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: <20180823075509.793123873@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:53:28 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...rosoft.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4.14 095/217] perf bench: Fix numa report output code

4.14-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>

[ Upstream commit 983107072be1a39cbde67d45cb0059138190e015 ]

Currently we can hit following assert when running numa bench:

  $ perf bench numa mem -p 3 -t 1 -P 512 -s 100 -zZ0cm --thp 1
  perf: bench/numa.c:1577: __bench_numa: Assertion `!(!(((wait_stat) & 0x7f) == 0))' failed.

The assertion is correct, because we hit the SIGFPE in following line:

  Thread 2.2 "thread 0/0" received signal SIGFPE, Arithmetic exception.
  [Switching to Thread 0x7fffd28c6700 (LWP 11750)]
  0x000.. in worker_thread (__tdata=0x7.. ) at bench/numa.c:1257
  1257 td->speed_gbs = bytes_done / (td->runtime_ns / NSEC_PER_SEC) / 1e9;

We don't check if the runtime is actually bigger than 1 second,
and thus this might end up with zero division within FPU.

Adding the check to prevent this.

Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
Cc: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180620094036.17278-1-jolsa@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@...rosoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
 tools/perf/bench/numa.c |    5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- a/tools/perf/bench/numa.c
+++ b/tools/perf/bench/numa.c
@@ -1098,7 +1098,7 @@ static void *worker_thread(void *__tdata
 	u8 *global_data;
 	u8 *process_data;
 	u8 *thread_data;
-	u64 bytes_done;
+	u64 bytes_done, secs;
 	long work_done;
 	u32 l;
 	struct rusage rusage;
@@ -1254,7 +1254,8 @@ static void *worker_thread(void *__tdata
 	timersub(&stop, &start0, &diff);
 	td->runtime_ns = diff.tv_sec * NSEC_PER_SEC;
 	td->runtime_ns += diff.tv_usec * NSEC_PER_USEC;
-	td->speed_gbs = bytes_done / (td->runtime_ns / NSEC_PER_SEC) / 1e9;
+	secs = td->runtime_ns / NSEC_PER_SEC;
+	td->speed_gbs = secs ? bytes_done / secs / 1e9 : 0;
 
 	getrusage(RUSAGE_THREAD, &rusage);
 	td->system_time_ns = rusage.ru_stime.tv_sec * NSEC_PER_SEC;