[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190130223308.GA8145@krava>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 23:33:08 +0100
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
eranian@...gle.com, vincent.weaver@...ne.edu,
"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: System crash with perf_fuzzer (kernel: 5.0.0-rc3)
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 12:39:47PM -0800, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> writes:
> >
> > the patch adds check_eriod pmu callback.. I need to check if there's
> > better way to do this, but so far it fixes the crash for me
> >
> > if you guys could check this patch, that'd be great
>
> There's already a limit_period callback, perhaps that could
> be extended. But ok, can do it this way too.
right, we call it within x86_perf_event_set_period to limit
the period, but I guess we should include this check after
changing the period:
if (event->attr.sample_period && x86_pmu.limit_period) {
if (x86_pmu.limit_period(event, event->attr.sample_period) >
event->attr.sample_period)
return -EINVAL;
}
>
> I suspect there are some other cases that need this callback, not
> just BTS, e.g. the checks in hsw_hw_config
ok, the sample_period values for checkpointed events,
we should check for this as well.. I'll add that
jirka
Powered by blists - more mailing lists