linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH 0/8] resctrl: Add perf PMU for resctrl monitoring

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20251017181700.62980-1-yonch@yonch.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 13:17:00 -0500
From: Jonathan Perry <yonch@...ch.com>
To: tony.luck@...el.com
Cc: yonch@...ch.com,
	corbet@....net,
	james.morse@....com,
	linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
	reinette.chatre@...el.com,
	romeusmeister@...il.com
Subject: RE: [PATCH 0/8] resctrl: Add perf PMU for resctrl monitoring

> > > Motivation: perf support enables measuring cache occupancy and memory
> > > bandwidth metrics on hrtimer (high resolution timer) interrupts via eBPF.
> > > Compared with polling from userspace, hrtimer-based reads remove
> > > scheduling jitter and context switch overhead. Further, PMU reads can be
> > > parallel, since the PMU read path need not lock resctrl's rdtgroup_mutex.
> > > Parallelization and reduced jitter enable more accurate snapshots of
> > > cache occupancy and memory bandwidth. [1] has more details on the
> > > motivation and design.
> >
> > This parallel read without rdtgroup_mutex looks worrying.
> >
> > The h/w counters have limited width (24-bits on older Intel CPUs,
> > 32-bits on AMD and Intel >= Icelake). So resctrl takes the raw
> > value and in get_corrected_val() figures the increment since the
> > previous read of the MSR to figure out how much to add to the
> > running per-RMID count of "chunks".
> >
> > That's all inherently full of races. If perf does this at the
> > same time that resctrl does, then things will be corrupted
> > sooner or later.
> >
> > You might fix it with a per-RMID spinlock in "struct arch_mbm_state"?
> 
> That might be too fine a locking granularity. You'd probably be fine
> with little contention with a lock in "struct rdt_mon_domain".

Good catch. Thank you Tony!

We might be able to solve the issue similarly to what adding a per-RMID 
spinlock in "struct arch_mbm_state" would do, but with only a memory 
barrier (no spinlock). I'll look further into it.

-Jonathan