linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v9 03/10] perf/x86: Add constraint to create guest LBR event without hw counter

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200417103016.GV20730@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 17 Apr 2020 12:30:16 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Xu, Like" <like.xu@...el.com>
Cc:     Like Xu <like.xu@...ux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
        Liran Alon <liran.alon@...cle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Liang Kan <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 03/10] perf/x86: Add constraint to create guest LBR
 event without hw counter

On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 11:03:33AM +0800, Xu, Like wrote:
> On 2020/4/10 0:37, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> > That should sort the branches in order of: gp,fixed,bts,vlbr
> 
> Note the current order is: bts, pebs, fixed, gp.

Yeah, and that means that gp (which is I think the most common case) is
the most expensive.

> Sure, let me try to refactor it in this way.

Thanks!

> > > +static inline bool is_guest_event(struct perf_event *event)
> > > +{
> > > +	if (event->attr.exclude_host && is_kernel_event(event))
> > > +		return true;
> > > +	return false;
> > > +}
> > I don't like this one, what if another in-kernel users generates an
> > event with exclude_host set ?
> Thanks for the clear attitude.
> 
> How about:
> - remove the is_guest_event() to avoid potential misuse;
> - move all checks into is_guest_lbr_event() and make it dedicated:
> 
> static inline bool is_guest_lbr_event(struct perf_event *event)
> {
>     if (is_kernel_event(event) &&
>         event->attr.exclude_host && needs_branch_stack(event))
>         return true;
>     return false;
> }
> 
> In this case, it's safe to generate an event with exclude_host set
> and also use LBR to count guest or nothing for other in-kernel users
> because the intel_guest_lbr_event_constraints() makes LBR exclusive.
> 
> For this generic usage, I may rename:
> - is_guest_lbr_event() to is_lbr_no_counter_event();
> - intel_guest_lbr_event_constraints() to
> intel_lbr_no_counter_event_constraints();
> 
> Is this acceptable to you？

I suppose so, please put a comment on top of that function though, so we
don't forget.

> > > @@ -181,9 +181,19 @@ struct x86_pmu_capability {
> > >   #define GLOBAL_STATUS_UNC_OVF				BIT_ULL(61)
> > >   #define GLOBAL_STATUS_ASIF				BIT_ULL(60)
> > >   #define GLOBAL_STATUS_COUNTERS_FROZEN			BIT_ULL(59)
> > > -#define GLOBAL_STATUS_LBRS_FROZEN			BIT_ULL(58)
> > > +#define GLOBAL_STATUS_LBRS_FROZEN_BIT			58
> > > +#define GLOBAL_STATUS_LBRS_FROZEN			BIT_ULL(GLOBAL_STATUS_LBRS_FROZEN_BIT)
> > >   #define GLOBAL_STATUS_TRACE_TOPAPMI			BIT_ULL(55)
> > > +/*
> > > + * We model guest LBR event tracing as another fixed-mode PMC like BTS.
> > > + *
> > > + * We choose bit 58 (LBRS_FROZEN_BIT) which is used to indicate that the LBR
> > > + * stack is frozen on a hardware PMI request in the PERF_GLOBAL_STATUS msr,
> > > + * and the 59th PMC counter (if any) is not supposed to use it as well.
> > Is this saying that STATUS.58 should never be set? I don't really
> > understand the language.
> My fault, and let me make it more clearly:
> 
> We choose bit 58 because it's used to indicate LBR stack frozen state
> not like other overflow conditions in the PERF_GLOBAL_STATUS msr,
> and it will not be used for any actual fixed events.

That's only with v4, also we unconditionally mask that bit in
handle_pmi_common(), so it'll never be set in the overflow handling.

That's all fine, I suppose, all you want is means of programming the LBR
registers, we don't actually do anything with then in the host context.
Please write a more elaborate comment here.