linux-kernel - Re: FIX Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] perf-stat: enable counting events for BPF programs

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]

Message-ID: <20210120170444.GA106434@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 20 Jan 2021 14:04:44 -0300
From:   Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To:     Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
Cc:     open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: FIX Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] perf-stat: enable counting events for BPF
 programs

Em Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 04:40:46PM +0000, Song Liu escreveu:
> 
> 
> > On Jan 20, 2021, at 8:30 AM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org> wrote:
> > 
> > Em Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 10:50:13AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> >> So sizeof(struct bpf_perf_event_value) == 24 and it is a per-cpu array, the
> >> machine has 24 cpus, why is the kernel thinking it has more and end up zeroing
> >> entries after the 24 cores? Some percpu map subtlety (or obvious thing ;-\) I'm
> >> missing?
> >> 
> >> Checking lookups into per cpu maps in sample code now...
> > 
> > (gdb) run stat -b 244 -I 1000 -e cycles
> > Starting program: /root/bin/perf stat -b 244 -I 1000 -e cycles
> > [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
> > Using host libthread_db library "/lib64/libthread_db.so.1".
> > libbpf: elf: skipping unrecognized data section(9) .eh_frame
> > libbpf: elf: skipping relo section(15) .rel.eh_frame for section(9) .eh_frame
> > 
> > Breakpoint 1, bpf_program_profiler__read (evsel=0xce02c0) at util/bpf_counter.c:217
> > 217		if (list_empty(&evsel->bpf_counter_list))
> > (gdb) p num_
> > num_cpu              num_groups           num_leaps            num_print_iv         num_stmts            num_transitions      num_warnings_issued
> > num_cpu_bpf          num_ifs              num_print_interval   num_srcfiles         num_to_str           num_types
> > (gdb) p num_cpu
> > $1 = 24
> > (gdb) p num_cpu_bpf
> > $2 = 32
> > (gdb)
> > 
> > Humm, why?
> > 
> > But then libbpf and the sample/bpf/ code use it this way:
> > 
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/bpf_counter.c b/tools/perf/util/bpf_counter.c
> > index 8c977f038f497fc1..7dd3d57aba4f620c 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/util/bpf_counter.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/bpf_counter.c
> > @@ -207,7 +207,8 @@ static int bpf_program_profiler__enable(struct evsel *evsel)
> > static int bpf_program_profiler__read(struct evsel *evsel)
> > {
> > 	int num_cpu = evsel__nr_cpus(evsel);
> > -	struct bpf_perf_event_value values[num_cpu];
> > +	int num_cpu_bpf = libbpf_num_possible_cpus();
> > +	struct bpf_perf_event_value values[num_cpu > num_cpu_bpf ? num_cpu : num_cpu_bpf];
> > 	struct bpf_counter *counter;
> > 	int reading_map_fd;
> > 	__u32 key = 0;
> > 
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > [root@...e ~]# cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/possible
> > 0-31
> > [root@...e ~]#
> > 
> > I bet that in your test systems evsel__nr_cpus(evsel) matches
> > /sys/devices/system/cpu/possible and thus you don't see the problem.
> 
> Thanks Arnaldo!
> 
> Yes, my system have same online and possible CPUs. 
> 
> Since possible_cpu >= online_cpu, maybe we can use num_cpu_bpf in 
> bpf_program_profiler__read() without he extra check? 

That is what I'll do, no need to resubmit, I'll audit the other bits to
see if something else needs changing.

- Arnaldo