| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <ZgfyVjoI+khgGQjy@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 12:07:02 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jolsa@...nel.org, song@...nel.org,
kernel-team@...a.com, Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] perf/x86/amd: support capturing LBR from software
events
* Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org> wrote:
> [0] added ability to capture LBR (Last Branch Records) on Intel CPUs
> from inside BPF program at pretty much any arbitrary point.
Upstream commit ID:
c22ac2a3d4bd ("perf: Enable branch record for software events")
> [...] This is extremely useful capability that allows to figure out
> otherwise hard-to-debug problems, because LBR is now available based
> on some application-defined conditions, not just hardware-supported
> events.
>
> retsnoop ([1]) is one such tool that takes a huge advantage of this
> functionality and has proved to be an extremely useful tool in
> practice.
>
> Now, AMD Zen4 CPUs got support for similar LBR functionality, but
> necessary wiring inside the kernel is not yet setup. This patch seeks to
> rectify this and follows a similar approach to the original patch [0]
> for Intel CPUs.
>
> Given LBR can be set up to capture any indirect jumps, it's critical to
> minimize indirect jumps on the way to requesting LBR from BPF program,
> so we split amd_pmu_lbr_disable_all() into a wrapper with some generic
> conditions vs always-inlined __amd_pmu_lbr_disable() called directly
> from BPF subsystem (through perf_snapshot_branch_stack static call).
>
> This was tested on AMD Bergamo CPU and worked well when utilized from
> the aforementioned retsnoop tool.
>
> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/20210910183352.3151445-2-songliubraving@fb.com/
> [1] https://github.com/anakryiko/retsnoop
>
> Reviewed-by: Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
> ---
> arch/x86/events/amd/core.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> arch/x86/events/amd/lbr.c | 7 +------
> arch/x86/events/perf_event.h | 11 +++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/amd/core.c b/arch/x86/events/amd/core.c
> index aec16e581f5b..88f6d0701342 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/amd/core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/amd/core.c
> @@ -618,7 +618,7 @@ static void amd_pmu_cpu_dead(int cpu)
> }
> }
>
> -static inline void amd_pmu_set_global_ctl(u64 ctl)
> +static __always_inline void amd_pmu_set_global_ctl(u64 ctl)
What is this inlining change about? My first guess was that it's to
generate better code, but my guess was wrong: it's to avoid branches.
To not force people to guess, please put it into a separate patch & add
an explanation.
> {
> wrmsrl(MSR_AMD64_PERF_CNTR_GLOBAL_CTL, ctl);
> }
> @@ -878,6 +878,29 @@ static int amd_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
> return amd_pmu_adjust_nmi_window(handled);
> }
>
> +static int amd_pmu_v2_snapshot_branch_stack(struct perf_branch_entry *entries, unsigned int cnt)
> +{
> + struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc;
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + /* must not have branches... */
> + local_irq_save(flags);
> + amd_pmu_core_disable_all();
> + __amd_pmu_lbr_disable();
> + /* ... until here */
Oh ... so it's not about performance or code layout, but to avoid new
branches to contaminate the snapshot, right? Even stronger reason to
put that change into a separate patch.
> +
> + cpuc = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_hw_events);
> +
> + amd_pmu_lbr_read();
> + cnt = min_t(unsigned int, cnt, x86_pmu.lbr_nr);
Why is min_t() used here? AFAICT all types here are 'unsigned int'.
> + memcpy(entries, cpuc->lbr_entries, sizeof(struct perf_branch_entry) * cnt);
The function could use a description comment explaining the arguments,
and that the caller must make sure there's enough space in the
'entries' array.
> +
> + amd_pmu_v2_enable_all(0);
> + local_irq_restore(flags);
> +
> + return cnt;
> +}
> +
> static int amd_pmu_v2_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
> {
> struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_hw_events);
> @@ -1414,6 +1437,10 @@ static int __init amd_core_pmu_init(void)
> static_call_update(amd_pmu_branch_reset, amd_pmu_lbr_reset);
> static_call_update(amd_pmu_branch_add, amd_pmu_lbr_add);
> static_call_update(amd_pmu_branch_del, amd_pmu_lbr_del);
> +
> + /* only support branch_stack snapshot on perfmon v2 */
> + if (x86_pmu.handle_irq == amd_pmu_v2_handle_irq)
> + static_call_update(perf_snapshot_branch_stack, amd_pmu_v2_snapshot_branch_stack);
> } else if (!amd_brs_init()) {
> /*
> * BRS requires special event constraints and flushing on ctxsw.
Please use consistent capitalization in all new comments you add:
/* Properly capitalized comment */
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/amd/lbr.c b/arch/x86/events/amd/lbr.c
> index 4a1e600314d5..0e4de028590d 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/amd/lbr.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/amd/lbr.c
> @@ -412,16 +412,11 @@ void amd_pmu_lbr_enable_all(void)
> void amd_pmu_lbr_disable_all(void)
> {
> struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_hw_events);
> - u64 dbg_ctl, dbg_extn_cfg;
>
> if (!cpuc->lbr_users || !x86_pmu.lbr_nr)
> return;
>
> - rdmsrl(MSR_AMD_DBG_EXTN_CFG, dbg_extn_cfg);
> - rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_DEBUGCTLMSR, dbg_ctl);
> -
> - wrmsrl(MSR_AMD_DBG_EXTN_CFG, dbg_extn_cfg & ~DBG_EXTN_CFG_LBRV2EN);
> - wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_DEBUGCTLMSR, dbg_ctl & ~DEBUGCTLMSR_FREEZE_LBRS_ON_PMI);
> + __amd_pmu_lbr_disable();
> }
>
> __init int amd_pmu_lbr_init(void)
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h b/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h
> index fb56518356ec..4dddf0a7e81e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h
> @@ -1329,6 +1329,17 @@ void amd_pmu_lbr_enable_all(void);
> void amd_pmu_lbr_disable_all(void);
> int amd_pmu_lbr_hw_config(struct perf_event *event);
>
> +static __always_inline void __amd_pmu_lbr_disable(void)
> +{
> + u64 dbg_ctl, dbg_extn_cfg;
> +
> + rdmsrl(MSR_AMD_DBG_EXTN_CFG, dbg_extn_cfg);
> + rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_DEBUGCTLMSR, dbg_ctl);
> +
> + wrmsrl(MSR_AMD_DBG_EXTN_CFG, dbg_extn_cfg & ~DBG_EXTN_CFG_LBRV2EN);
> + wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_DEBUGCTLMSR, dbg_ctl & ~DEBUGCTLMSR_FREEZE_LBRS_ON_PMI);
> +}
> +
This factoring out of __amd_pmu_lbr_disable() should be in a separate
preparatory patch too.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists