linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 3/5] perf/x86/intel: Filter unsupported Topdown metrics event

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: <16cc31ac-eb41-e7cc-5582-e21400bfd15f@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Jan 2021 15:50:37 -0500
From:   "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     acme@...nel.org, mingo@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        eranian@...gle.com, namhyung@...nel.org, jolsa@...hat.com,
        ak@...ux.intel.com, yao.jin@...ux.intel.com, mpe@...erman.id.au,
        maddy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 3/5] perf/x86/intel: Filter unsupported Topdown metrics
 event



On 1/27/2021 2:13 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 07:38:43AM -0800, kan.liang@...ux.intel.com wrote:
>> From: Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
>>
>> Current perf doesn't check the index of a Topdown metrics event before
>> updating the event. A perf tool user may get a value from an unsupported
>> Topdown metrics event.
>>
>> For example, the L2 topdown event, cpu/event=0x00,umask=0x84/, is not
>> supported on Ice Lake. A perf tool user may mistakenly use the
>> unsupported events via RAW format. In this case, the scheduler follows
>> the unknown event handling and assigns a GP counter to the event. The
>> icl_get_topdown_value() returns the value of the slots to the event.
>> The perf tool user will get the value for the unsupported
>> Topdown metrics event.
>>
>> Add a check in the __icl_update_topdown_event() and avoid updating
>> unsupported events.
> 
> I was struggling trying to understand how we end up here. Because
> userspace can add whatever crap it wants, and why is only this thing a
> problem..
> 
> But the actual problem is the next patch changing INTEL_TD_METRIC_NUM,
> which then means is_metric_idx() will change, and that means that for
> ICL we'll accept these raw events as metric events on creation and then
> at runtime we get into trouble.
> 
> This isn't spelled out.
> 
> I do think this is entirely the wrong fix for that though. You're now
> adding cycles to the relative hot path, instead of fixing the problem at
> event creation, which is the slow path.
> 
> Why can't we either refuse the event on ICL or otherwise wreck it on
> construction to avoid getting into trouble here?
> 

To reject the unsupported topdown events, I think perf needs to know the 
number of the supported topdown events. Maybe we can add a variable 
num_topdown_events in x86_pmu as below. Is it OK?

diff --git a/arch/x86/events/core.c b/arch/x86/events/core.c
index 3d6fdcf..c7f2602 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/core.c
+++ b/arch/x86/events/core.c
@@ -1061,6 +1061,18 @@ int x86_schedule_events(struct cpu_hw_events 
*cpuc, int n, int *assign)
  	return unsched ? -EINVAL : 0;
  }

+#define INTEL_TD_METRIC_AVAILABLE_MAX	(INTEL_TD_METRIC_RETIRING + \
+					 ((x86_pmu.num_topdown_events - 1) << 8))
+
+inline bool is_metric_event(struct perf_event *event)
+{
+	u64 config = event->attr.config;
+
+	return ((config & ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL_EVENT) == 0) &&
+		((config & INTEL_ARCH_EVENT_MASK) >= INTEL_TD_METRIC_RETIRING)  &&
+		((config & INTEL_ARCH_EVENT_MASK) <= INTEL_TD_METRIC_AVAILABLE_MAX);
+}
+
  static int add_nr_metric_event(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc,
  			       struct perf_event *event)
  {
diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
index cd4d542..eab1eba 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
+++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
@@ -5769,6 +5769,7 @@ __init int intel_pmu_init(void)
  		x86_pmu.rtm_abort_event = X86_CONFIG(.event=0xc9, .umask=0x04);
  		x86_pmu.lbr_pt_coexist = true;
  		intel_pmu_pebs_data_source_skl(pmem);
+		x86_pmu.num_topdown_events = 4;
  		x86_pmu.update_topdown_event = icl_update_topdown_event;
  		x86_pmu.set_topdown_event_period = icl_set_topdown_event_period;
  		pr_cont("Icelake events, ");
diff --git a/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h b/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h
index 15977d0..8b05893 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h
+++ b/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h
@@ -87,14 +87,7 @@ static inline bool is_topdown_count(struct perf_event 
*event)
  	return event->hw.flags & PERF_X86_EVENT_TOPDOWN;
  }

-static inline bool is_metric_event(struct perf_event *event)
-{
-	u64 config = event->attr.config;
-
-	return ((config & ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL_EVENT) == 0) &&
-		((config & INTEL_ARCH_EVENT_MASK) >= INTEL_TD_METRIC_RETIRING)  &&
-		((config & INTEL_ARCH_EVENT_MASK) <= INTEL_TD_METRIC_MAX);
-}
+inline bool is_metric_event(struct perf_event *event);

  static inline bool is_slots_event(struct perf_event *event)
  {
@@ -782,6 +775,7 @@ struct x86_pmu {
  	/*
  	 * Intel perf metrics
  	 */
+	int		num_topdown_events;
  	u64		(*update_topdown_event)(struct perf_event *event);
  	int		(*set_topdown_event_period)(struct perf_event *event);


Thanks,
Kan