linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] perf: arm_spe: Correct setting the PERF_HES

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: <aSSrrmX_nAl82GKE@willie-the-truck>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2025 19:02:06 +0000
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: Leo Yan <leo.yan@....com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
	James Clark <james.clark@...aro.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] perf: arm_spe: Correct setting the
 PERF_HES_STOPPED flag

On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 06:48:15PM +0000, Leo Yan wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 04:14:23PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 04:28:31PM +0000, Leo Yan wrote:
> > > In arm_spe_perf_aux_output_begin(), if the calculation of limit fails
> > > and arm_spe_pmu_next_off() returns zero, the driver misses to set the
> > > PERF_HES_STOPPED flag for the event.  As a result, hwc->state does not
> > > reflect the latest state, which can mislead subsequent operations.
> > > 
> > > Validate the limit when exiting the function: if the limit is 0,
> > > that tracing is disabled, set the PERF_HES_STOPPED flag accordingly.
> > > 
> > > Fixes: d5d9696b0380 ("drivers/perf: Add support for ARMv8.2 Statistical Profiling Extension")
> > > Signed-off-by: Leo Yan <leo.yan@....com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c | 9 ++++++---
> > >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c b/drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c
> > > index fa50645feddadbea5dc1e404f80f62cf5aa96fd4..fc8f908c2c3a270f2d1ae574c2badb1fbcf51484 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_spe_pmu.c
> > > @@ -597,7 +597,6 @@ static void arm_spe_perf_aux_output_begin(struct perf_output_handle *handle,
> > >  	/* Start a new aux session */
> > >  	buf = perf_aux_output_begin(handle, event);
> > >  	if (!buf) {
> > > -		event->hw.state |= PERF_HES_STOPPED;
> > >  		/*
> > >  		 * We still need to clear the limit pointer, since the
> > >  		 * profiler might only be disabled by virtue of a fault.
> > > @@ -608,15 +607,19 @@ static void arm_spe_perf_aux_output_begin(struct perf_output_handle *handle,
> > >  
> > >  	limit = buf->snapshot ? arm_spe_pmu_next_snapshot_off(handle)
> > >  			      : arm_spe_pmu_next_off(handle);
> > > -	if (limit)
> > > -		limit |= PMBLIMITR_EL1_E;
> > > +	if (!limit)
> > > +		goto out_write_limit;
> > 
> > Is 'limit == 0' always indicative of an error, even in snapshot mode?
> 
> Yes, the 'limit' would never be zero unless an error occurs.
> 
> > If __arm_spe_pmu_next_off() fails, it will call perf_aux_output_end()
> > with the TRUNCATED flag set, which should then disable the event
> > via arm_spe_pmu_del() and update the state there.
> > 
> > Is that not happening?
> 
> Correct.  However, this patch is not for the flow you mentioned.

How is it not for this flow? You're talking about:

arm_spe_pmu_start
	=> arm_spe_perf_aux_output_begin
		=> arm_spe_pmu_next_off // Returns error

The only way arm_spe_pmu_next_off() returns an error is if
__arm_spe_pmu_next_off() fails, and that's the flow I'm talking about.

> If an error is returned from arm_spe_pmu_next_off(), because hw.state
> is not set to PERF_HES_STOPPED, the caller arm_spe_pmu_start() cannot
> detect error properly:

But why isn't PERF_HES_STOPPED set by the sequence I described?

I have a feeling you're right, but I can't piece it together from the
information here.

Will