| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <2e7a6e34-12d8-004c-405f-307dc9b5ce66@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2021 15:10:26 -0500
From: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
To: Thomas Richter <tmricht@...ux.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
acme@...nel.org
Cc: svens@...ux.ibm.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com, sumanthk@...ux.ibm.com,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
Athira Rajeev <atrajeev@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf test: Test case 27 fails on s390 and non-x86
platforms
On 3/2/2021 12:08 PM, Thomas Richter wrote:
> On 3/2/21 4:23 PM, Liang, Kan wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3/2/2021 9:48 AM, Thomas Richter wrote:
>>> On 3/2/21 3:03 PM, Liang, Kan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> + Athira Rajeev
>>>>
>>>> On 3/2/2021 8:31 AM, Thomas Richter wrote:
>>>>> Executing perf test 27 fails on s390:
>>>>> [root@...lp46 perf]# ./perf test -Fv 27
>>>>> 27: Sample parsing
>>>>> --- start ---
>>>>> ---- end ----
>>>>> Sample parsing: FAILED!
>>>>> [root@...lp46 perf]#
>>>>>
>>>>> The root cause is
>>>>> commit c7444297fd3769 ("perf test: Support PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT_STRUCT")
>>>>> This commit introduced a test case for PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT_STRUCT
>>>>> but does not adjust non-x86 weak linkage functions.
>>>>>
>>>>> The error is in test__sample_parsing() --> do_test()
>>>>> Function do_test() defines two structures of type struct perf_sample named
>>>>> sample and sample_out. The first sets member sample.ins_lat = 117
>>>>>
>>>>> Structure sample_out is constructed dynamically using functions
>>>>> perf_event__synthesize_sample() and evsel__parse_sample().
>>>>> Both functions have an x86 specific function version which sets member
>>>>> ins_lat. The weak common functions do not set member ins_lat.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think Power supports the instruction latency. As a request from Athira Rajeev, I moved the PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT_STRUCT to the X86 specific codes.
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/D97FEF4F-DD88-4760-885E-9A6161A9B48B@linux.vnet.ibm.com/
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1612540912-6562-1-git-send-email-kan.liang@linux.intel.com/
>>>>
>>>> I don't think we want to add the ins_lat back in the weak common functions.
>>>>
>>>> Could you please update the perf test and don't apply the PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT_STRUCT for the non-X86 platform?
>>>
>>> I used offical linux git tree
>>> [root@...lp46 perf]# git tag | fgrep 5.12
>>> v5.12-rc1
>>> [root@...lp46 perf]#
>>>
>>> So this change is in the pipe. I do not plan to revert individual patches.
>>
>> No, we shouldn't revert the patch.
>> I mean can you fix the issue in perf test?
>> Don't test ins_lat or PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT_STRUCT for a non-X86 platform.
>
> That would be very ugly code. We would end up in conditional compiles like
> #ifdef __s390x__
> #endif
> and other architectes like ARM/POWER etc come along. This is something I want to avoid.
>
The ins_lat is a model specific variable. Maybe we should move it to the
arch specific test.
> And this fix only touches perf, not the kernel.
The patch changes the behavior of the PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT. The high 32
bit will be dropped. It should bring some problems if the high 32 bit
contains valid information.
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Later in function samples_same() both data in variable sample and sample_out
>>>>> are compared. The comparison fails because sample.ins_lat is 117
>>>>> and samples_out.ins_lat is 0, the weak functions never set member ins_lat.
>>>>>
>>>>> Output after:
>>>>> [root@...lp46 perf]# ./perf test -Fv 27
>>>>> 27: Sample parsing
>>>>> --- start ---
>>>>> ---- end ----
>>>>> Sample parsing: Ok
>>>>> [root@...lp46 perf]#
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes:
>>>>> commit c7444297fd3769 ("perf test: Support PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT_STRUCT")
>>>>
>>>> I think the regression should start from
>>>> commit fbefe9c2f87f ("perf tools: Support arch specific PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT_STRUCT processing")
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Kan
>>>
>>> Kan,
>>>
>>> I do not follow you. Your commit c7444297fd3769d10c7ffb52c81d71503b3e268f
>>> adds this line
>>>
>>> @@ -242,6 +245,7 @@ static int do_test(u64 sample_type, u64 sample_regs, u64 read_format)
>>> .cgroup = 114,
>>> .data_page_size = 115,
>>> .code_page_size = 116,
>>> + .ins_lat = 117,
>>>
>>> And this assignment 117 breaks the test. As mentioned before, member ins_lat is never touched
>>> by the weak functions.
>>>
>>
>> Here is the timeline for the patches.
>>
>> 1. The commit c7444297fd3769 and other SPR patches are merged at 2021-02-08. At that time, I don't think we have this issue. perf test should work well.
>
> Nope, that line above 'ins_lat = 117.' breaks the test. Comment it out and it works well!!!
If you revert the commit fbefe9c2f87f, perf test should work well too.
The root cause of the issue is that the commit fbefe9c2f87f change the
ins_lat to a model-specific variable, but perf test still verify the
variable in the generic test.
The below patch moves the PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT test into a X86 specific test.
Does it work for you?
---
tools/perf/arch/x86/include/arch-tests.h | 1 +
tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/Build | 1 +
tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/arch-tests.c | 4 +
tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/sample-parsing.c | 125
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
tools/perf/tests/sample-parsing.c | 4 -
5 files changed, 131 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/sample-parsing.c
diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/x86/include/arch-tests.h
b/tools/perf/arch/x86/include/arch-tests.h
index 6a54b94..0e20f3d 100644
--- a/tools/perf/arch/x86/include/arch-tests.h
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/x86/include/arch-tests.h
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ int test__rdpmc(struct test *test __maybe_unused, int
subtest);
int test__insn_x86(struct test *test __maybe_unused, int subtest);
int test__intel_pt_pkt_decoder(struct test *test, int subtest);
int test__bp_modify(struct test *test, int subtest);
+int test__x86_sample_parsing(struct test *test, int subtest);
#ifdef HAVE_DWARF_UNWIND_SUPPORT
struct thread;
diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/Build
b/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/Build
index 36d4f24..28d7933 100644
--- a/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/Build
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/Build
@@ -3,5 +3,6 @@ perf-$(CONFIG_DWARF_UNWIND) += dwarf-unwind.o
perf-y += arch-tests.o
perf-y += rdpmc.o
+perf-y += sample-parsing.o
perf-$(CONFIG_AUXTRACE) += insn-x86.o intel-pt-pkt-decoder-test.o
perf-$(CONFIG_X86_64) += bp-modify.o
diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/arch-tests.c
b/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/arch-tests.c
index bc25d72..71aa673 100644
--- a/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/arch-tests.c
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/arch-tests.c
@@ -31,6 +31,10 @@ struct test arch_tests[] = {
},
#endif
{
+ .desc = "x86 Sample parsing",
+ .func = test__x86_sample_parsing,
+ },
+ {
.func = NULL,
},
diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/sample-parsing.c
b/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/sample-parsing.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..28bbc61
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/sample-parsing.c
@@ -0,0 +1,125 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
+#include <stdbool.h>
+#include <inttypes.h>
+#include <stdlib.h>
+#include <string.h>
+#include <linux/bitops.h>
+#include <linux/kernel.h>
+#include <linux/types.h>
+
+#include "map_symbol.h"
+#include "branch.h"
+#include "event.h"
+#include "evsel.h"
+#include "debug.h"
+#include "util/synthetic-events.h"
+
+#include "tests/tests.h"
+#include "arch-tests.h"
+
+#define COMP(m) do { \
+ if (s1->m != s2->m) { \
+ pr_debug("Samples differ at '"#m"'\n"); \
+ return false; \
+ } \
+} while (0)
+
+static bool samples_same(const struct perf_sample *s1,
+ const struct perf_sample *s2,
+ u64 type)
+{
+ if (type & PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT_STRUCT)
+ COMP(ins_lat);
+
+ return true;
+}
+
+static int do_test(u64 sample_type, u64 read_format)
+{
+ struct evsel evsel = {
+ .needs_swap = false,
+ .core = {
+ . attr = {
+ .sample_type = sample_type,
+ .read_format = read_format,
+ },
+ },
+ };
+ union perf_event *event;
+ struct perf_sample sample = {
+ .weight = 101,
+ .ins_lat = 102,
+ };
+ struct perf_sample sample_out;
+ size_t i, sz, bufsz;
+ int err, ret = -1;
+
+ sz = perf_event__sample_event_size(&sample, sample_type, read_format);
+ bufsz = sz + 4096; /* Add a bit for overrun checking */
+ event = malloc(bufsz);
+ if (!event) {
+ pr_debug("malloc failed\n");
+ return -1;
+ }
+
+ memset(event, 0xff, bufsz);
+ event->header.type = PERF_RECORD_SAMPLE;
+ event->header.misc = 0;
+ event->header.size = sz;
+
+ err = perf_event__synthesize_sample(event, sample_type, read_format,
+ &sample);
+ if (err) {
+ pr_debug("%s failed for sample_type %#"PRIx64", error %d\n",
+ "perf_event__synthesize_sample", sample_type, err);
+ goto out_free;
+ }
+
+ /* The data does not contain 0xff so we use that to check the size */
+ for (i = bufsz; i > 0; i--) {
+ if (*(i - 1 + (u8 *)event) != 0xff)
+ break;
+ }
+ if (i != sz) {
+ pr_debug("Event size mismatch: actual %zu vs expected %zu\n",
+ i, sz);
+ goto out_free;
+ }
+
+ evsel.sample_size = __evsel__sample_size(sample_type);
+
+ err = evsel__parse_sample(&evsel, event, &sample_out);
+ if (err) {
+ pr_debug("%s failed for sample_type %#"PRIx64", error %d\n",
+ "evsel__parse_sample", sample_type, err);
+ goto out_free;
+ }
+
+ if (!samples_same(&sample, &sample_out, sample_type)) {
+ pr_debug("parsing failed for sample_type %#"PRIx64"\n",
+ sample_type);
+ goto out_free;
+ }
+
+ ret = 0;
+out_free:
+ free(event);
+ if (ret && read_format)
+ pr_debug("read_format %#"PRIx64"\n", read_format);
+ return ret;
+}
+
+/**
+ * test__x86_sample_parsing - test X86 specific sample parsing
+ *
+ * This function implements a test that synthesizes a sample event,
parses it
+ * and then checks that the parsed sample matches the original sample.
The test
+ * checks sample format bits separately and together. If the test
passes %0 is
+ * returned, otherwise %-1 is returned.
+ *
+ * For now, PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT_STRUCT is the only X86 specific sample type.
+ */
+int test__x86_sample_parsing(struct test *test __maybe_unused, int
subtest __maybe_unused)
+{
+ return do_test(PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT_STRUCT, 0);
+}
diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/sample-parsing.c
b/tools/perf/tests/sample-parsing.c
index 0dbe3aa..8fd8a4e 100644
--- a/tools/perf/tests/sample-parsing.c
+++ b/tools/perf/tests/sample-parsing.c
@@ -129,9 +129,6 @@ static bool samples_same(const struct perf_sample *s1,
if (type & PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT)
COMP(weight);
- if (type & PERF_SAMPLE_WEIGHT_STRUCT)
- COMP(ins_lat);
-
if (type & PERF_SAMPLE_DATA_SRC)
COMP(data_src);
@@ -245,7 +242,6 @@ static int do_test(u64 sample_type, u64 sample_regs,
u64 read_format)
.cgroup = 114,
.data_page_size = 115,
.code_page_size = 116,
- .ins_lat = 117,
.aux_sample = {
.size = sizeof(aux_data),
.data = (void *)aux_data,
--
2.7.4
Thanks,
Kan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists