[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <eae451c6-9bf8-4910-b9c1-4a558c308929@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 09:13:01 -0500
From: David Arcari <darcari@...hat.com>
To: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] tools/power turbostat: avoid segfault referencing
fd_instr_count_percpu
So get_instr_count_fd() calls open_perf_counter() which in turn calls
perf_event_open() which returns the value from syscall(). From the
documentation this seems to return -1 in the case of a failure.
Looking at get_instr_count_fd() I see:
int get_instr_count_fd(int cpu)
{
if (fd_instr_count_percpu[cpu])
return fd_instr_count_percpu[cpu];
fd_instr_count_percpu[cpu] = open_perf_counter(cpu, PERF_TYPE_HARDWARE,
PERF_COUNT_HW_INSTRUCTIONS, -1, 0);
return fd_instr_count_percpu[cpu];
}
So open_perf_counter() is only called when fd_instr_count_percpu[cpu] is
0. In that case the return value is stored in
fd_instr_count_percpu[cpu]. So in the case of an error this value would
be -1; otherwise, it should be a valid file descriptor. In fact, I
don't think the function should ever return 0.
As far as I can tell fd_instr_count_percpu[] is initialized to zero so
that get_instr_count_fd() can discern whether or not
open_perf_counter() needs to be called.
Am I missing something?
I do see that free_fd_instr_count_percpu() has a bug as I think the code
should be:
if (fd_instr_count_percpu[i] > 0)
instead of:
if (fd_instr_count_percpu[i] != 0)
Thanks,
-DA
On 11/25/25 2:11 PM, Len Brown wrote:
> not your fault, but looking at this code, it seems that
> get_instr_count_fd(base_cpu)
> assumes that 0 is an invalid FD. Fine, but based on that you'd think
> we'd use zero for invalid
> and non-zero for valid as return for the function call...
>
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2025 at 10:58 AM David Arcari <darcari@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> The problem is that fd_instr_count_percpu is allocated based on
>> the value of has_aperf. If has_aperf=0 then fd_instr_count_percpu
>> remains NULL. However, get_instr_count_fd() is called from
>> turbostat_init() based on the value of has_aperf_access.
>>
>> On some VM systems has_aperf can be 0, while has_aperf_access can be
>> 1. In order to resolve the issue simply check for to see if
>> fd_instr_count_percpu is NULL and return -1 if it is. Accordingly,
>> the has_aperf_access check can be removed from turbostat_init.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Arcari <darcari@...hat.com>
>> Cc: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
>> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>> ---
>> tools/power/x86/turbostat/turbostat.c | 5 ++++-
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/power/x86/turbostat/turbostat.c b/tools/power/x86/turbostat/turbostat.c
>> index f2512d78bcbd..584b0f7f9067 100644
>> --- a/tools/power/x86/turbostat/turbostat.c
>> +++ b/tools/power/x86/turbostat/turbostat.c
>> @@ -2463,6 +2463,9 @@ static long open_perf_counter(int cpu, unsigned int type, unsigned int config, i
>>
>> int get_instr_count_fd(int cpu)
>> {
>> + if (!fd_instr_count_percpu)
>> + return -1;
>> +
>> if (fd_instr_count_percpu[cpu])
>> return fd_instr_count_percpu[cpu];
>>
>> @@ -10027,7 +10030,7 @@ void turbostat_init()
>> for_all_cpus(get_cpu_type, ODD_COUNTERS);
>> for_all_cpus(get_cpu_type, EVEN_COUNTERS);
>>
>> - if (BIC_IS_ENABLED(BIC_IPC) && has_aperf_access && get_instr_count_fd(base_cpu) != -1)
>> + if (BIC_IS_ENABLED(BIC_IPC) && get_instr_count_fd(base_cpu) != -1)
>> BIC_PRESENT(BIC_IPC);
>>
>> /*
>> --
>> 2.51.0
>>
>>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists