linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf: Change PMCR write to read-modify-write

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: <b2e82eca3dec9d1ea9053e9e69223db3@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Thu, 21 Mar 2019 13:02:27 -0700
From:   Sodagudi Prasad <psodagud@...eaurora.org>
To:     Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@....com>
Cc:     will.deacon@....com, mingo@...hat.com, catalin.marinas@....com,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: Change PMCR write to read-modify-write

On 2019-03-21 06:34, Julien Thierry wrote:
> Hi Prasad,
> 
> On 21/03/2019 02:07, Prasad Sodagudi wrote:
>> Preserves the bitfields of PMCR_EL0(AArch64) during PMU reset.
>> Reset routine should write a 1 to PMCR.C and PMCR.P fields only
>> to reset the counters. Other fields should not be changed
>> as they could be set before PMU initialization and their
>> value must be preserved even after reset.
>> 
> 
> Are there any particular bit you are concerned about? Apart from the RO
> ones and the Res0 ones (to which we are already writing 0), I see:
> 
> DP -> irrelevant for non-secure
> X -> This one is the only potentially interesting, however it resets to
> an architecturally unknown value, so unless we know for a fact it was
> set before hand, we probably want to clear it
> D -> ignored when we have LC set (and we do)
> E -> Since this is the function we use to reset the PMU on the current
> CPU, we probably want to set this bit to 0 regardless of its previous 
> value
> 
> So, is there any issue this patch is solving?

Hi Julien,

Thanks for taking a look into this patch. Yes. On our Qualcomm 
platforms, observed that X bit is getting cleared by kernel.
This bit is getting set by firmware for Qualcomm use cases and 
non-secure world is resetting without this patch.
I think, changing that register this register modifications to 
read-modify-write style make sense.

-Thanks, Prasad

> 
> Thanks,
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Prasad Sodagudi <psodagud@...eaurora.org>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c 
>> b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c
>> index 4addb38..0c1afdd 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c
>> @@ -868,8 +868,8 @@ static void armv8pmu_reset(void *info)
>>  	 * Initialize & Reset PMNC. Request overflow interrupt for
>>  	 * 64 bit cycle counter but cheat in armv8pmu_write_counter().
>>  	 */
>> -	armv8pmu_pmcr_write(ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_P | ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_C |
>> -			    ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_LC);
>> +	armv8pmu_pmcr_write(armv8pmu_pmcr_read() | ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_P |
>> +			ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_C | ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_LC);
>>  }
>> 
>>  static int __armv8_pmuv3_map_event(struct perf_event *event,
>> 

-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora 
Forum,
Linux Foundation Collaborative Project