linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf: arm_cspmu: Don't touch interrupt registers if no interrupt was assigned

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8fdfceb2-90b3-a1a9-fa88-a45ece30c0bb@os.amperecomputing.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 18:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ilkka Koskinen <ilkka@...amperecomputing.com>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
cc: Ilkka Koskinen <ilkka@...amperecomputing.com>, 
    Besar Wicaksono <bwicaksono@...dia.com>, 
    Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, 
    Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@...el.com>, 
    linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: arm_cspmu: Don't touch interrupt registers if no
 interrupt was assigned


On Mon, 8 Apr 2024, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2024-04-05 11:33 pm, Ilkka Koskinen wrote:
>> 
>> On Fri, 5 Apr 2024, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>> On 2024-03-07 7:31 pm, Ilkka Koskinen wrote:
>>>> The driver enabled and disabled interrupts even if no interrupt was
>>>> assigned to the device.
>>> 
>>> Why's that a concern - if the interrupt isn't routed anywhere, surely it 
>>> makes no difference what happens at the source end?
>> 
>> The issue is that we have two PMUs attached to the same interrupt line.
>> Unfortunately, I just don't seem to find time to add support for shared 
>> interrupts to the cspmu driver. Meanwhile, I assigned the interrupt to one 
>> of the PMUs while the other one has zero in the APMT table.
>
> I suspected something like that ;)
>
>> Without the patch, I can trigger "ghost interrupt" in the latter PMU.
>
> An occasional spurious interrupt should be no big deal. If it ends up as a 
> screaming spurious interrupt because we never handle the overflow condition 
> on the "other" PMU, then what matters most is that we never handle the 
> overflow, thus the "other" PMU is still useless since you can't assume the 
> user is going to read it frequently enough to avoid losing information and 
> getting nonsense counts back. So this hack really isn't a viable solution for 
> anything.

IIRC, what happens is that kernel will disable the interrupt eventually 
due to unhandled spurious interrupts making the "working" PMU also 
useless.

Cheers, Ilkka

>
> Thanks,
> Robin.
>