From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Eranian Stephane <eranian@google.com>,
Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@amd.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@amd.com>,
Ananth Narayan <ananth.narayan@amd.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@intel.com>,
Zide Chen <zide.chen@intel.com>,
Falcon Thomas <thomas.falcon@intel.com>,
Xudong Hao <xudong.hao@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch v5 01/18] perf/x86: Disable LBR if x86_pmu.lbr_nr exceeds MAX_LBR_ENTRIES
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2026 10:38:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261029093845.GI1779021@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261029043914.1395147-2-dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>
On Thu, Oct 29, 2026 at 12:38:57PM +0800, Dapeng Mi wrote:
> Add a sanity check for x86_pmu.lbr_nr. If the hardware reports more LBR
> entries than MAX_LBR_ENTRIES, disable LBR to avoid out-of-bounds access
> in the cached LBR stack handling path.
Cute, can this actually happen?
> Signed-off-by: Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/events/amd/lbr.c | 8 +++++++-
> arch/x86/events/intel/core.c | 7 +++++++
> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/amd/lbr.c b/arch/x86/events/amd/lbr.c
> index a55646fcb846..96c5b5e56053 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/amd/lbr.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/amd/lbr.c
> @@ -433,7 +433,13 @@ __init int amd_pmu_lbr_init(void)
> ebx.full = cpuid_ebx(EXT_PERFMON_DEBUG_FEATURES);
> x86_pmu.lbr_nr = ebx.split.lbr_v2_stack_sz;
>
> - pr_cont("%d-deep LBR, ", x86_pmu.lbr_nr);
> + if (x86_pmu.lbr_nr > MAX_LBR_ENTRIES) {
> + pr_warn("LBR entries %d exceeds max %d, disable LBR.\n",
> + x86_pmu.lbr_nr, MAX_LBR_ENTRIES);
> + x86_pmu.lbr_nr = 0;
> + } else {
> + pr_cont("%d-deep LBR, ", x86_pmu.lbr_nr);
> + }
>
> return 0;
> }
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> index 0a34d674df59..10c694db85ea 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> @@ -9023,6 +9023,13 @@ __init int intel_pmu_init(void)
> */
> if (x86_pmu.lbr_tos && !check_msr(x86_pmu.lbr_tos, 0x3UL))
> x86_pmu.lbr_nr = 0;
> +
> + if (x86_pmu.lbr_nr > MAX_LBR_ENTRIES) {
> + pr_warn("LBR entries %d exceeds max %d, disable LBR.\n",
> + x86_pmu.lbr_nr, MAX_LBR_ENTRIES);
> + x86_pmu.lbr_nr = 0;
> + }
> +
> for (i = 0; i < x86_pmu.lbr_nr; i++) {
> if (!(check_msr(x86_pmu.lbr_from + i, 0xffffUL) &&
> check_msr(x86_pmu.lbr_to + i, 0xffffUL)))
Would it make sense to have but one copy of this check in
init_hw_perf_events(), after calling into the micro-arch code?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-29 9:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-29 4:38 [Patch v5 00/18] perf/x86: Fix multiple LBR sampling issues Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 4:38 ` [Patch v5 01/18] perf/x86: Disable LBR if x86_pmu.lbr_nr exceeds MAX_LBR_ENTRIES Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 5:03 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-29 9:38 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2026-10-29 9:56 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-10-29 10:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-29 4:38 ` [Patch v5 02/18] perf/x86/intel: Validate LBR XSAVE state before updating LBR stack Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 5:11 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-29 9:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-29 10:09 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-10-29 4:38 ` [Patch v5 03/18] perf/x86/amd/lbr: Limit branch snapshots to valid entries Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 4:53 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-29 4:39 ` [Patch v5 04/18] perf/x86/intel/lbr: " Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 4:56 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-29 4:39 ` [Patch v5 05/18] perf/x86: Add lbr_enabled to track LBR state Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 5:10 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-29 4:39 ` [Patch v5 06/18] perf/x86/amd: Avoid re-enabling PMU and LBR for BPF when disabled Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 5:08 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-29 4:39 ` [Patch v5 07/18] perf/x86/intel: Add helper to enable PMU without LBR Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 4:51 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-29 4:39 ` [Patch v5 08/18] perf/x86/intel: Avoid re-enabling PMU and LBR for BPF when disabled Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 5:02 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-29 4:39 ` [Patch v5 09/18] perf/x86/intel: Keep LBR frozen throughout PMI handling Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 4:59 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-29 10:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-29 4:39 ` [Patch v5 10/18] perf/x86/intel: Allow LBR read helpers to operate on explicit stacks Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 4:58 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-29 10:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-29 4:39 ` [Patch v5 11/18] perf/x86/intel: Use a dedicated LBR stack for BPF snapshotting Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 5:05 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-29 10:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-29 4:39 ` [Patch v5 12/18] perf/x86/intel: Always snapshot live hardware LBR state for BPF Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 5:01 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-29 10:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-29 4:39 ` [Patch v5 13/18] perf/x86/intel: Refresh LBR stack for non-PEBS LBR events if needed Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 5:09 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-29 11:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-29 4:39 ` [Patch v5 14/18] perf/x86/intel: Account arch-PEBS in lbr_pebs_users Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 4:55 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-29 4:39 ` [Patch v5 15/18] perf/x86/intel: Clear raw LBR counters in the LBR stack Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 5:03 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-29 4:39 ` [Patch v5 16/18] perf/x86/intel: Refill LBR stack for LBR counter events in PMI handler Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 5:16 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-29 4:39 ` [Patch v5 17/18] perf/x86/intel: Pass LBR stack size into store_lbr() Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 4:53 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-29 4:39 ` [Patch v5 18/18] perf/core: Don't overwrite shared LBR stack depth Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 4:57 ` sashiko-bot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20261029093845.GI1779021@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=ananth.narayan@amd.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dapeng1.mi@intel.com \
--cc=dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=ravi.bangoria@amd.com \
--cc=sandipan.das@amd.com \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=thomas.falcon@intel.com \
--cc=xudong.hao@intel.com \
--cc=zide.chen@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.