linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 06/12] perf: arm_pmu: Remove event index to counter remapping

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]

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 17:19:40 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
	James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
	Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@...wei.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	James Clark <james.clark@....com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/12] perf: arm_pmu: Remove event index to counter
 remapping

On Mon, Jul 01, 2024 at 09:49:29AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2024 at 7:52 AM Will Deacon <will@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 12:05:23PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > On Wed, 26 Jun 2024 23:32:30 +0100,
> > > "Rob Herring (Arm)" <robh@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Xscale and Armv6 PMUs defined the cycle counter at 0 and event counters
> > > > starting at 1 and had 1:1 event index to counter numbering. On Armv7 and
> > > > later, this changed the cycle counter to 31 and event counters start at
> > > > 0. The drivers for Armv7 and PMUv3 kept the old event index numbering
> > > > and introduced an event index to counter conversion. The conversion uses
> > > > masking to convert from event index to a counter number. This operation
> > > > relies on having at most 32 counters so that the cycle counter index 0
> > > > can be transformed to counter number 31.
> > > >
> > > > Armv9.4 adds support for an additional fixed function counter
> > > > (instructions) which increases possible counters to more than 32, and
> > > > the conversion won't work anymore as a simple subtract and mask. The
> > > > primary reason for the translation (other than history) seems to be to
> > > > have a contiguous mask of counters 0-N. Keeping that would result in
> > > > more complicated index to counter conversions. Instead, store a mask of
> > > > available counters rather than just number of events. That provides more
> > > > information in addition to the number of events.
> > > >
> > > > No (intended) functional changes.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@...nel.org>
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h b/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h
> > > > index b3b34f6670cf..e5d6d204beab 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h
> > > > @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ struct arm_pmu {
> > > >     void            (*stop)(struct arm_pmu *);
> > > >     void            (*reset)(void *);
> > > >     int             (*map_event)(struct perf_event *event);
> > > > -   int             num_events;
> > > > +   DECLARE_BITMAP(cntr_mask, ARMPMU_MAX_HWEVENTS);
> > >
> > > I'm slightly worried by this, as this size is never used, let alone
> > > checked by the individual drivers. I can perfectly picture some new
> > > (non-architectural) PMU driver having more counters than that, and
> > > blindly setting bits outside of the allowed range.
> >
> > I tend to agree.
> >
> > > One way to make it a bit safer would be to add a helper replacing the
> > > various bitmap_set() calls, and enforcing that we never overflow this
> > > bitmap.
> >
> > Or perhaps wd could leave the 'num_events' field intact and allocate the
> > new bitmap dynamically?
> >
> > Rob -- what do you prefer? I think the rest of the series is ready to go.
> 
> I think the list of places we're initializing cntr_mask is short
> enough to check and additions to arm_pmu users are rare enough I would
> not be too worried about it.
> 
> If anything, I think the issue is with the bitmap API in that it has
> no bounds checking. I'm sure it will get on someone's radar to fix at
> some point.
> 
> But if we want to have something check, this is what I have:
> 
> static inline void armpmu_set_counter_mask(struct arm_pmu *pmu,
>                                           unsigned int start, unsigned int nr)
> {
>        if (WARN_ON(start + nr > ARMPMU_MAX_HWEVENTS))
>                return;
>        bitmap_set(pmu->cntr_mask, start, nr);
> }

Fair enough, for the sake of consistency, let's leave the series as-is
and we can add helpers for all the counter-bound structures later, if we
want to.

Will