linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] perf: arm_cspmu: Support implementation specific event validation

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: <30a649f3-f787-56f-38a0-9ce0ef87f4ca@os.amperecomputing.com>
Date:   Fri, 2 Jun 2023 00:09:24 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Ilkka Koskinen <ilkka@...amperecomputing.com>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
cc:     Ilkka Koskinen <ilkka@...amperecomputing.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Besar Wicaksono <bwicaksono@...dia.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] perf: arm_cspmu: Support implementation specific
 event validation


Hi Robin,

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2023-06-01 04:01, Ilkka Koskinen wrote:
>> Some platforms may use e.g. different filtering mechanism and, thus,
>> may need different way to validate the events.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Ilkka Koskinen <ilkka@...amperecomputing.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/arm_cspmu.c | 4 ++++
>>   drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/arm_cspmu.h | 2 ++
>>   2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/arm_cspmu.c 
>> b/drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/arm_cspmu.c
>> index b4c4ef81c719..a26f484e06b1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/arm_cspmu.c
>> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/arm_cspmu.c
>> @@ -593,6 +593,10 @@ static int arm_cspmu_get_event_idx(struct 
>> arm_cspmu_hw_events *hw_events,
>>   	if (idx >= cspmu->num_logical_ctrs)
>>   		return -EAGAIN;
>>   +	if (cspmu->impl.ops.validate_event &&
>> +	    !cspmu->impl.ops.validate_event(cspmu, event))
>> +		return -EAGAIN;
>
> Seems like this should be -EINVAL, or maybe the callback should return int so 
> it can make its own distinction (yes, I know the outer logic doesn't actually 
> propagate it, but there's no reason that couldn't improve at some point as 
> well).

Makes sense to me.

> Another thought is that once we get into imp-def conditions for whether an 
> event is valid in itself, we presumably also need to consider imp-def 
> conditions for whether a given pair of events are compatible to be grouped?

That's a good point. I'll take a look at it.

Cheers, Ilkka

>
> Thanks,
> Robin.
>
>> +
>>   	set_bit(idx, hw_events->used_ctrs);
>>     	return idx;
>> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/arm_cspmu.h 
>> b/drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/arm_cspmu.h
>> index 4a29b921f7e8..0e5c316c96f9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/arm_cspmu.h
>> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/arm_cspmu.h
>> @@ -106,6 +106,8 @@ struct arm_cspmu_impl_ops {
>>   	void (*set_ev_filter)(struct arm_cspmu *cspmu,
>>   			      struct hw_perf_event *hwc,
>>   			      u32 filter);
>> +	/* Implementation specific event validation */
>> +	bool (*validate_event)(struct arm_cspmu *cspmu, struct perf_event 
>> *new);
>>   	/* Hide/show unsupported events */
>>   	umode_t (*event_attr_is_visible)(struct kobject *kobj,
>>   					 struct attribute *attr, int unused);
>