linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] perf/core,x86: synchronize PMU task contexts on optimized context switches

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: <20191022094300.GL1817@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:43:00 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
        Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] perf/core,x86: synchronize PMU task contexts on
 optimized context switches

On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 09:01:11AM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:

>  			swap(ctx->task_ctx_data, next_ctx->task_ctx_data);
>  
> +			/*
> +			 * PMU specific parts of task perf context can require
> +			 * additional synchronization which makes sense only if
> +			 * both next_ctx->task_ctx_data and ctx->task_ctx_data
> +			 * pointers are allocated. As an example of such
> +			 * synchronization see implementation details of Intel
> +			 * LBR call stack data profiling;
> +			 */
> +			if (ctx->task_ctx_data && next_ctx->task_ctx_data)
> +				pmu->sync_task_ctx(next_ctx->task_ctx_data,
> +						   ctx->task_ctx_data);

This still does not check if pmu->sync_task_ctx is set. If any other
arch ever uses task_ctx_data without then also supplying this method
things will go *bang*.

Also, I think I prefer the variant I gave you yesterday:

  https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20191021103745.GF1800@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net

	if (pmu->swap_task_ctx)
		pmu->swap_task_ctx(ctx, next_ctx);
	else
		swap(ctx->task_ctx_data, next_ctx->task_ctx_data);

That also unconfuses the argument order in your above patch (where you
have to undo thw swap).

Alternatively, since there currently is no other arch using
task_ctx_data, we can make the pmu::swap_task_ctx() thing mandatory when
having it and completely replace the swap(), write it like so:


-	swap(ctx->task_ctx_data, next_ctx->task_ctx_data);
+	if (pmu->swap_task_ctx)
+		pmu->swap_task_ctx(ctx, next_ctx);

Hmm?