linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] perf: arm_cspmu: Support implementation specific 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <27cd7bbf-bec7-2a68-1a90-55e764cab0cf@os.amperecomputing.com>
Date:   Wed, 21 Jun 2023 15:09:00 -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 v3 3/4] perf: arm_cspmu: Support implementation specific
 validation


Hi Robin,

On Tue, 20 Jun 2023, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 07/06/2023 9:31 am, Ilkka Koskinen wrote:
>> Some platforms may use e.g. different filtering mechanism and, thus,
>> may need different way to validate the events and group.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Ilkka Koskinen <ilkka@...amperecomputing.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/arm_cspmu.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
>>   drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/arm_cspmu.h |  4 ++++
>>   2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/arm_cspmu.c 
>> b/drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/arm_cspmu.c
>> index 72ca4f56347c..9021d1878250 100644
>> --- a/drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/arm_cspmu.c
>> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/arm_cspmu.c
>> @@ -559,7 +559,7 @@ static void arm_cspmu_disable(struct pmu *pmu)
>>   static int arm_cspmu_get_event_idx(struct arm_cspmu_hw_events *hw_events,
>>   				struct perf_event *event)
>>   {
>> -	int idx;
>> +	int idx, ret;
>>   	struct arm_cspmu *cspmu = to_arm_cspmu(event->pmu);
>>     	if (supports_cycle_counter(cspmu)) {
>> @@ -593,6 +593,12 @@ 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) {
>> +		ret = cspmu->impl.ops.validate_event(cspmu, event);
>> +		if (ret)
>> +			return ret;
>> +	}
>> +
>>   	set_bit(idx, hw_events->used_ctrs);
>>     	return idx;
>> @@ -618,6 +624,7 @@ static bool arm_cspmu_validate_event(struct pmu *pmu,
>>    */
>>   static bool arm_cspmu_validate_group(struct perf_event *event)
>>   {
>> +	struct arm_cspmu *cspmu = to_arm_cspmu(event->pmu);
>>   	struct perf_event *sibling, *leader = event->group_leader;
>>   	struct arm_cspmu_hw_events fake_hw_events;
>>   @@ -635,6 +642,10 @@ static bool arm_cspmu_validate_group(struct 
>> perf_event *event)
>>   			return false;
>>   	}
>>   +	if (cspmu->impl.ops.validate_group &&
>> +	    cspmu->impl.ops.validate_group(event))
>> +		return false;
>
> Hmm, this means that any driver wanting to use it has to duplicate all the 
> group iteration logic, which isn't ideal. More than that, though, the way 
> you've implemented it in patch #4 I'm not sure even does anything, since it 
> only appears to be repeating the same checks that already happen in this 
> path:
>
>  arm_csmpu_validate_group()
>    arm_cspmu_validate_event()
>      arm_cspmu_get_event_idx()
>        ops.validate_event() -> ampere_cspmu_validate_params()
>
> so there's no need for the ops.validate_group hook to just call 
> ampere_cspmu_validate_params() a second time when it's guaranteed to succeed 
> (because otherwise we'd have bailed out already).

Yeah, I took another look how the framework really does it and you're 
absolutely correct, it's totally unnecessary.

>
> I think what we want overall is an "is this event config valid at all" hook 
> from arm_cspmu_event_init() (which we don't really need to implement yet 
> unless you want to start sanity-checking your actual rank/bank/threshold 
> values), plus an "is this event schedulable in the given PMU context" hook 
> from arm_cspmu_get_event_idx(), which should serve for both group validation 
> via the fake context in event_init and actual scheduling in the real context 
> in add.

Ah, that's true. I can already verify the group event has the same 
rank/bank/threshold settings as the group leader in ops.validate_event(). 
Thus, one hook seems enough.

I fix and rebase the patchset.

Cheers, Ilkka


> Thanks,
> Robin.
>
>> +
>>   	return arm_cspmu_validate_event(event->pmu, &fake_hw_events, event);
>>   }
>>   diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/arm_cspmu.h 
>> b/drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/arm_cspmu.h
>> index f89ae2077164..291cedb196ea 100644
>> --- a/drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/arm_cspmu.h
>> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_cspmu/arm_cspmu.h
>> @@ -106,6 +106,10 @@ struct arm_cspmu_impl_ops {
>>   	void (*set_ev_filter)(struct arm_cspmu *cspmu,
>>   			      struct hw_perf_event *hwc,
>>   			      u32 filter);
>> +	/* Implementation specific group validation */
>> +	int (*validate_group)(struct perf_event *event);
>> +	/* Implementation specific event validation */
>> +	int (*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);
>