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: <20230123072327.4k4ai6mwfy4uc6qq@orel>
Date:   Mon, 23 Jan 2023 08:23:27 +0100
From:   Andrew Jones <ajones@...tanamicro.com>
To:     Atish Patra <atishp@...osinc.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@...shpatra.org>,
        Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>, kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Sergey Matyukevich <sergey.matyukevich@...tacore.com>,
        Eric Lin <eric.lin@...ive.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 10/11] RISC-V: KVM: Implement perf support without
 sampling

On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 12:45:02PM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 09:00:45AM -0800, Atish Patra wrote:
...
> > +	/* Start the counters that have been configured and requested by the guest */
> > +	for_each_set_bit(i, &ctr_mask, RISCV_MAX_COUNTERS) {
> > +		pmc_index = i + ctr_base;
> > +		if (!test_bit(pmc_index, kvpmu->pmc_in_use))
> > +			continue;
> > +		pmc = &kvpmu->pmc[pmc_index];
> > +		if (flag & SBI_PMU_START_FLAG_SET_INIT_VALUE)
> > +			pmc->counter_val = ival;
> > +		if (pmc->perf_event) {
> > +			if (unlikely(pmc->started)) {
> > +				sbiret = SBI_ERR_ALREADY_STARTED;
> > +				continue;
> > +			}
> > +			perf_event_period(pmc->perf_event, pmu_get_sample_period(pmc));
> > +			perf_event_enable(pmc->perf_event);
> > +			pmc->started = true;
> > +		} else {
> > +			kvm_debug("Can not start counter due to invalid confiugartion\n");
>                                    ^ Cannot                             ^ configuration
> 
> > +			sbiret = SBI_ERR_INVALID_PARAM;
> > +		}
> > +	}
> 
> Possibly a spec oversight is that we continue to try and start counters,
> even when we've seen errors. The problem with implementing that is that
> if we have both errors we only return the last one. I.e. one counter
> was already started and another counter resulted in invalid-param, we
> only return invalid-param. We also don't say anything about the number
> of failures / successes. I think we should bail on the first error and
> even stop counters that we started. Callers can then try again after
> correcting their input without potentially getting already-started errors.
> We'd need to change the spec to do that though.
>

Thinking about this some more, the spec doesn't prohibit implementations
from bailing on the first error, so we can do that. But maybe we don't
need to stop the counters we started. We can leave it to the driver to
sort out what got configured/started and what didn't when it gets an
error.

Thanks,
drew

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ