linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] perf/core: Remove pmu linear searching code

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: <ZG+FLdP2kkfI1m2Z@linux.dev>
Date:   Thu, 25 May 2023 15:56:29 +0000
From:   Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@....com>,
        Nathan Chancellor <nathan@...nel.org>, namhyung@...nel.org,
        eranian@...gle.com, acme@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
        jolsa@...nel.org, irogers@...gle.com, bp@...en8.de,
        kan.liang@...ux.intel.com, adrian.hunter@...el.com,
        maddy@...ux.ibm.com, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        sandipan.das@....com, ananth.narayan@....com,
        santosh.shukla@....com, maz@...nel.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] perf/core: Remove pmu linear searching code

On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 04:20:31PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 07:11:41AM +0000, Oliver Upton wrote:
> 
> > The PMUv3 driver does pass a name, but it relies on getting back an
> > allocated pmu id as @type is -1 in the call to perf_pmu_register().
> > 
> > What actually broke is how KVM probes for a default core PMU to use for
> > a guest. kvm_pmu_probe_armpmu() creates a counter w/ PERF_TYPE_RAW and
> > reads the pmu from the returned perf_event. The linear search had the
> > effect of eventually stumbling on the correct core PMU and succeeding.
> > 
> > Perf folks: is this WAI for heterogenous systems?
> 
> TBH, I'm not sure. hetero and virt don't mix very well AFAIK and I'm not
> sure what ARM64 does here.
> 
> IIRC the only way is to hard affine things; that is, force vCPU of
> 'type' to the pCPU mask of 'type' CPUs.

We provide absolutely no illusion of consistency across implementations.
Userspace can select the PMU type, and then it is a userspace problem
affining vCPUs to the right pCPUs.

And if they get that wrong, we just bail and refuse to run the vCPU.

> If you don't do that; or let userspace 'override' that, things go
> sideways *real* fast.

Oh yeah, and I wish PMUs were the only problem with these hetero
systems...

> Mark gonna have to look at this.

Cool. I'll go ahead with the KVM cleanup regardless of the outcome.

--
Thanks,
Oliver