linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: add bpf_read_branch

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: <20200126045236.d6ah2l7joxtthdw6@ast-mbp>
Date:   Sat, 25 Jan 2020 20:52:38 -0800
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Cc:     Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz>, bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 bpf-next 2/2] selftests/bpf: add
 bpf_read_branch_records() selftest

On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 04:50:14AM +0000, Yonghong Song wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/25/20 8:10 PM, Daniel Xu wrote:
> > On Sat Jan 25, 2020 at 6:53 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 2:32 PM Daniel Xu <dxu@...uu.xyz> wrote:
> >>> +       attr.type = PERF_TYPE_HARDWARE;
> >>> +       attr.config = PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES;
> >>> +       attr.freq = 1;
> >>> +       attr.sample_freq = 4000;
> >>> +       attr.sample_type = PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_STACK;
> >>> +       attr.branch_sample_type = PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_USER | PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_ANY;
> >>> +       pfd = syscall(__NR_perf_event_open, &attr, -1, 0, -1, PERF_FLAG_FD_CLOEXEC);
> >>> +       if (CHECK(pfd < 0, "perf_event_open", "err %d\n", pfd))
> >>> +               goto out_destroy;
> >>
> >>
> >> It's failing for me in kvm. Is there way to make it work?
> >> CIs will be vm based too. If this test requires physical host
> >> such test will keep failing in all such environments.
> >> Folks will be annoyed and eventually will disable the test.
> >> Can we figure out how to test in the vm from the start?
> > 
> > It seems there's a patchset that's adding LBR support to guest hosts:
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/8/6/215 . However it seems to be stuck in
> > review limbo. Is there anything we can do to help that set along?
> > 
> > As far as hacking it, nothing really comes to mind. Seems that patchset
> > is our best hope.
> 
> prog_tests/send_signal.c tests send_signal helper under nmi with 
> hardware counters. It added a check to see whether the underlying
> hardware counter is supported, if it is not, the test is
> skipped.
> 
> Maybe we can use the same appraoch here. If perf_event_open with
> PERF_TYPE_HARDWARE/PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_STACK failed,
> we just mark the test as skipped instead of failing.

Instead of failing and skipping the test how about making it test error case?
Like instead of lbr perf_event some other event can be passed into bpf prog.
New helper can still be called and in such case it should return einval?