linux-kernel - Re: [kvm-unit-tests Patch 2/5] x86: pmu: Change the minimum value of llc

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: <a2483e6e-c5fe-4604-9aaa-db2a1df8fa77@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Oct 2023 18:17:32 +0800
From:   "Mi, Dapeng" <dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
Cc:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com>,
        Zhang Xiong <xiong.y.zhang@...el.com>,
        Mingwei Zhang <mizhang@...gle.com>,
        Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>,
        Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests Patch 2/5] x86: pmu: Change the minimum value of
 llc_misses event to 0


On 10/26/2023 8:19 PM, Jim Mattson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 7:14 PM Mi, Dapeng <dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/25/2023 8:35 PM, Jim Mattson wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 4:23 AM Mi, Dapeng <dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/24/2023 9:03 PM, Jim Mattson wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 12:51 AM Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Along with the CPU HW's upgrade and optimization, the count of LLC
>>>>>> misses event for running loop() helper could be 0 just like seen on
>>>>>> Sapphire Rapids.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So modify the lower limit of possible count range for LLC misses
>>>>>> events to 0 to avoid LLC misses event test failure on Sapphire Rapids.
>>>>> I'm not convinced that these tests are really indicative of whether or
>>>>> not the PMU is working properly. If 0 is allowed for llc misses, for
>>>>> instance, doesn't this sub-test pass even when the PMU is disabled?
>>>>>
>>>>> Surely, we can do better.
>>>> Considering the testing workload is just a simple adding loop, it's
>>>> reasonable and possible that it gets a 0 result for LLC misses and
>>>> branch misses events. Yeah, I agree the 0 count makes the results not so
>>>> credible. If we want to avoid these 0 count values, we may have to
>>>> complicate the workload, such as adding flush cache instructions, or
>>>> something like that (I'm not sure if there are instructions which can
>>>> force branch misses). How's your idea about this?
>>> CLFLUSH is probably a good way to ensure cache misses. IBPB may be a
>>> good way to ensure branch mispredictions, or IBRS on parts without
>>> eIBRS.
>>
>> Thanks Jim for the information. I'm not familiar with IBPB/IBRS
>> instructions, but just a glance, it looks there two instructions are
>> some kind of advanced instructions,  Not all Intel CPUs support these
>> instructions and not sure if AMD has similar instructions. It would be
>> better if there are more generic instruction to trigger branch miss.
>> Anyway I would look at the details and come back again.
> IBPB and IBRS are not instructions. IBPB (indirect branch predictor
> barrier) is triggered by setting bit 0 of the IA32_PRED_CMD MSR. IBRS
> (indirect branch restricted speculation) is triggered by setting bit 0
> of the IA32_SPEC_CTRL MSR. It is true that the desired behavior of
> IBRS (causing branch mispredictions) is only exhibited by certain
> older parts. However, IBPB is now universally available, as it is
> necessary to mitigate many speculative execution attacks. For Intel
> documentation, see
> https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/technical/software-security-guidance/technical-documentation/cpuid-enumeration-and-architectural-msrs.html.
>
> If you don't want to use these, you could train a branch to go one way
> prior to measurement, and then arrange for the branch under test go
> the other way.


Thanks Jim. From my point of view, IBPB is still some kind of extended 
feature which may be not supported on some older platforms. Considering 
kvm-unit-tests could still be run on these old platforms, IBPB seems not 
the best choice. I'm thinking an alternative way is to use the 'rdrand' 
instruction to get a random value, and then call jmp instruction base on 
the random value results. That would definitely cause branch misses. 
This looks more generic.


>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>     x86/pmu.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>     1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/x86/pmu.c b/x86/pmu.c
>>>>>> index 0def28695c70..7443fdab5c8a 100644
>>>>>> --- a/x86/pmu.c
>>>>>> +++ b/x86/pmu.c
>>>>>> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ struct pmu_event {
>>>>>>            {"instructions", 0x00c0, 10*N, 10.2*N},
>>>>>>            {"ref cycles", 0x013c, 1*N, 30*N},
>>>>>>            {"llc references", 0x4f2e, 1, 2*N},
>>>>>> -       {"llc misses", 0x412e, 1, 1*N},
>>>>>> +       {"llc misses", 0x412e, 0, 1*N},
>>>>>>            {"branches", 0x00c4, 1*N, 1.1*N},
>>>>>>            {"branch misses", 0x00c5, 0, 0.1*N},
>>>>>>     }, amd_gp_events[] = {
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 2.34.1
>>>>>>