linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/intel: Disable check

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]

Date:   Sun, 16 Jun 2019 20:56:19 +0000
From:   "Vaden, Tom (HPE Server OS Architecture)" <tom.vaden@....com>
To:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/intel: Disable check_msr for real hw



On 6/16/19 10:13 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 09:45:21AM -0400, Liang, Kan wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 6/14/2019 7:28 AM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>>> hi,
>>> the HPE server can do POST tracing and have enabled LBR
>>> tracing during the boot, which makes check_msr fail falsly.
>>>
>>> It looks like check_msr code was added only to check on guests
>>> MSR access, would it be then ok to disable check_msr for real
>>> hardware? (as in patch below)
>>
>> Yes, the check_msr patch was to fix a bug report in guest.
>> I didn't get similar bug report for real hardware.
>> I think it should be OK to disable it for real hardware.
>>
> 
> thanks for confirmation, attaching the full patch
> 
> thanks,
> jirka
> 
> 
> ---
> Tom Vaden reported false failure of check_msr function, because
> some servers can do POST tracing and enable LBR tracing during
> the boot.
> 
> Kan confirmed that check_msr patch was to fix a bug report in
> guest, so it's ok to disable it for real HW.
> 
> Cc: Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>
> Reported-by: Tom Vaden <tom.vaden@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>

Thanks for handling the patch.

Acked-by: Tom Vaden <tom.vaden@....com>

> ---
>   arch/x86/events/intel/core.c | 8 ++++++++
>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> index 71001f005bfe..1194ae7e1992 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
>   #include <asm/intel-family.h>
>   #include <asm/apic.h>
>   #include <asm/cpu_device_id.h>
> +#include <asm/hypervisor.h>
>   
>   #include "../perf_event.h"
>   
> @@ -4050,6 +4051,13 @@ static bool check_msr(unsigned long msr, u64 mask)
>   {
>   	u64 val_old, val_new, val_tmp;
>   
> +	/*
> +	 * Disable the check for real HW, so we don't
> +	 * mess up with potentionaly enabled regs.
> +	 */
> +	if (hypervisor_is_type(X86_HYPER_NATIVE))
> +		return true;
> +
>   	/*
>   	 * Read the current value, change it and read it back to see if it
>   	 * matches, this is needed to detect certain hardware emulators
>