linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] perf: Fix the ctx->pmu for a hybrid system

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: <YMujZ7a/8ToWXzo+@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Thu, 17 Jun 2021 21:32:55 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     mingo@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, acme@...nel.org,
        mark.rutland@....com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
        alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, namhyung@...nel.org,
        jolsa@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] perf: Fix the ctx->pmu for a hybrid system

On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 10:10:37AM -0400, Liang, Kan wrote:
> I think all the perf_sw_context PMUs share the same pmu_cpu_context. so the
> cpuctx->ctx.pmu should be always the first registered perf_sw_context PMU
> which is perf_swevent. The ctx->pmu could be another software PMU.

Is there actually anything that relies on that? IIRC the sw pmus only
use event->pmu->foo() methods (exactly because the ctx->pmu is
unreliable for them).

> In theory, the perf_sw_context PMUs should have a similar issue. If the
> events are from different perf_sw_context PMUs, we should perf_pmu_disable()
> all of the PMUs before schedule them, but the ctx->pmu only tracks the first
> one.
> 
> I don't have a good way to fix the perf_sw_context PMUs. I think we have to
> go through the event list and find all PMUs. But I don't think it's worth
> doing.

Yeah, the software PMUs are misserable, they're one of the things I wish
I'd done differently. Cleaning that up is *somewhere* on the TODO list.

So I *think* it should work as is and we can avoid the extra check, but
let me know what actual testing does.