linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 bpf-next 1/3] perf: enable branch record for software events

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

Message-ID: <20210910185003.GC5106@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:   Fri, 10 Sep 2021 20:50:03 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
Cc:     "bpf@...r.kernel.org" <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
        "mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "kjain@...ux.ibm.com" <kjain@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
        John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 bpf-next 1/3] perf: enable branch record for software
 events

On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 08:40:27PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 06:27:36PM +0000, Song Liu wrote:
> 
> > This works great and saves 3 entries! We have the following now:
> 
> Yay!
> 
> > ID: 0 from bpf_get_branch_snapshot+18 to intel_pmu_snapshot_branch_stack+0
> 
> is unavoidable, we need to end up in intel_pmu_snapshot_branch_stack()
> eventually.
> 
> > ID: 1 from __brk_limit+477143934 to bpf_get_branch_snapshot+0
> 
> could be elided by having the JIT emit the call to
> intel_pmu_snapshot_branch_stack directly, instead of laundering it
> through that helper I suppose.
> 
> > ID: 2 from __brk_limit+477192263 to __brk_limit+477143880  # trampoline 
> > ID: 3 from __bpf_prog_enter+34 to __brk_limit+477192251
> 
> -ENOCLUE
> 
> > ID: 4 from migrate_disable+60 to __bpf_prog_enter+9
> > ID: 5 from __bpf_prog_enter+4 to migrate_disable+0
> 
> I suppose we can reduce that to a single branch if we inline
> migrate_disable() here, that thing unfortunately needs one branch
> itself.

Oooh, since we put local_irq_save/restore() in
intel_pmu_snapshot_branch_stack(), we no longer need to be after
migrate_disable(). You could go back to placing it earlier!