linux-kernel - [tip: perf/urgent] perf/x86/intel: Fix PT PMI handling

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 17 Dec 2019 12:39:50 -0000
From:   "tip-bot2 for Alexander Shishkin" <tip-bot2@...utronix.de>
To:     linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Vitaly Slobodskoy <vitaly.slobodskoy@...el.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        x86 <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [tip: perf/urgent] perf/x86/intel: Fix PT PMI handling

The following commit has been merged into the perf/urgent branch of tip:

Commit-ID:     92ca7da4bdc24d63bb0bcd241c11441ddb63b80a
Gitweb:        https://git.kernel.org/tip/92ca7da4bdc24d63bb0bcd241c11441ddb63b80a
Author:        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
AuthorDate:    Tue, 10 Dec 2019 12:51:01 +02:00
Committer:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CommitterDate: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 13:32:46 +01:00

perf/x86/intel: Fix PT PMI handling

Commit:

  ccbebba4c6bf ("perf/x86/intel/pt: Bypass PT vs. LBR exclusivity if the core supports it")

skips the PT/LBR exclusivity check on CPUs where PT and LBRs coexist, but
also inadvertently skips the active_events bump for PT in that case, which
is a bug. If there aren't any hardware events at the same time as PT, the
PMI handler will ignore PT PMIs, as active_events reads zero in that case,
resulting in the "Uhhuh" spurious NMI warning and PT data loss.

Fix this by always increasing active_events for PT events.

Fixes: ccbebba4c6bf ("perf/x86/intel/pt: Bypass PT vs. LBR exclusivity if the core supports it")
Reported-by: Vitaly Slobodskoy <vitaly.slobodskoy@...el.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Acked-by: Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20191210105101.77210-1-alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com
---
 arch/x86/events/core.c |  9 +++++++--
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/events/core.c b/arch/x86/events/core.c
index 84fe1be..f118af9 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/core.c
+++ b/arch/x86/events/core.c
@@ -376,7 +376,7 @@ int x86_add_exclusive(unsigned int what)
 	 * LBR and BTS are still mutually exclusive.
 	 */
 	if (x86_pmu.lbr_pt_coexist && what == x86_lbr_exclusive_pt)
-		return 0;
+		goto out;
 
 	if (!atomic_inc_not_zero(&x86_pmu.lbr_exclusive[what])) {
 		mutex_lock(&pmc_reserve_mutex);
@@ -388,6 +388,7 @@ int x86_add_exclusive(unsigned int what)
 		mutex_unlock(&pmc_reserve_mutex);
 	}
 
+out:
 	atomic_inc(&active_events);
 	return 0;
 
@@ -398,11 +399,15 @@ fail_unlock:
 
 void x86_del_exclusive(unsigned int what)
 {
+	atomic_dec(&active_events);
+
+	/*
+	 * See the comment in x86_add_exclusive().
+	 */
 	if (x86_pmu.lbr_pt_coexist && what == x86_lbr_exclusive_pt)
 		return;
 
 	atomic_dec(&x86_pmu.lbr_exclusive[what]);
-	atomic_dec(&active_events);
 }
 
 int x86_setup_perfctr(struct perf_event *event)