linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf/x86/intel: Fix IA32_PMC_x_CFG

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: <aDq3S9lwO1YadCKT@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2025 10:01:15 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
	Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Eranian Stephane <eranian@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf/x86/intel: Fix IA32_PMC_x_CFG_B MSRs access
 error


* Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

> When running perf_fuzzer on PTL, sometimes the below "unchecked MSR
>  access error" is seen when accessing IA32_PMC_x_CFG_B MSRs.
> 
> [   55.611268] unchecked MSR access error: WRMSR to 0x1986 (tried to write 0x0000000200000001) at rIP: 0xffffffffac564b28 (native_write_msr+0x8/0x30)
> [   55.611280] Call Trace:
> [   55.611282]  <TASK>
> [   55.611284]  ? intel_pmu_config_acr+0x87/0x160
> [   55.611289]  intel_pmu_enable_acr+0x6d/0x80
> [   55.611291]  intel_pmu_enable_event+0xce/0x460
> [   55.611293]  x86_pmu_start+0x78/0xb0
> [   55.611297]  x86_pmu_enable+0x218/0x3a0
> [   55.611300]  ? x86_pmu_enable+0x121/0x3a0
> [   55.611302]  perf_pmu_enable+0x40/0x50
> [   55.611307]  ctx_resched+0x19d/0x220
> [   55.611309]  __perf_install_in_context+0x284/0x2f0
> [   55.611311]  ? __pfx_remote_function+0x10/0x10
> [   55.611314]  remote_function+0x52/0x70
> [   55.611317]  ? __pfx_remote_function+0x10/0x10
> [   55.611319]  generic_exec_single+0x84/0x150
> [   55.611323]  smp_call_function_single+0xc5/0x1a0
> [   55.611326]  ? __pfx_remote_function+0x10/0x10
> [   55.611329]  perf_install_in_context+0xd1/0x1e0
> [   55.611331]  ? __pfx___perf_install_in_context+0x10/0x10
> [   55.611333]  __do_sys_perf_event_open+0xa76/0x1040
> [   55.611336]  __x64_sys_perf_event_open+0x26/0x30
> [   55.611337]  x64_sys_call+0x1d8e/0x20c0
> [   55.611339]  do_syscall_64+0x4f/0x120
> [   55.611343]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
> 
> On PTL, GP counter 0 and 1 doesn't support auto counter reload feature,
> thus it would trigger a #GP when trying to write 1 on bit 0 of CFG_B MSR
> which requires to enable auto counter reload on GP counter 0.
> 
> The root cause of causing this issue is the check for auto counter
> reload (ACR) counter mask from user space is incorrect in
> intel_pmu_acr_late_setup() helper. It leads to an invalid ACR counter
> mask from user space could be set into hw.config1 and then written into
> CFG_B MSRs and trigger the MSR access warning.
> 
> e.g., User may create a perf event with ACR counter mask (config2=0xcb),
> and there is only 1 event created, so "cpuc->n_events" is 1.
> 
> The correct check condition should be "i + idx >= cpuc->n_events"
> instead of "i + idx > cpuc->n_events" (it looks a typo). Otherwise,
> the counter mask would traverse twice and an invalid "cpuc->assign[1]"
> bit (bit 0) is set into hw.config1 and cause MSR accessing error.
> 
> Besides, also check if the ACR counter mask corresponding events are
> ACR events. If not, filter out these counter mask. If a event is not a
> ACR event, it could be scheduled to an HW counter which doesn't support
> ACR. It's invalid to add their counter index in ACR counter mask.
> 
> Furthermore, remove the WARN_ON_ONCE() since it's easily triggered as
> user could set any invalid ACR counter mask and the warning message
> could mislead users.
> 
> Fixes: ec980e4facef ("perf/x86/intel: Support auto counter reload")
> Signed-off-by: Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/events/intel/core.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> index 3a319cf6d364..8d046b1a237e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> @@ -2994,7 +2994,8 @@ static void intel_pmu_acr_late_setup(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc)
>  			if (event->group_leader != leader->group_leader)
>  				break;
>  			for_each_set_bit(idx, (unsigned long *)&event->attr.config2, X86_PMC_IDX_MAX) {
> -				if (WARN_ON_ONCE(i + idx > cpuc->n_events))
> +				if (i + idx >= cpuc->n_events ||
> +				    !is_acr_event_group(cpuc->event_list[i + idx]))
>  					return;

Is this a normal condition?

 - If it's normal then the 'return' is destructive, isn't it? Shouldn't 
   it be a 'break', if this condition is legitimate?

 - If it's not normal, then the WARN_ON_ONCE() was justified, right?

Thanks,

	Ingo