From: "Mi, Dapeng" <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>
To: Zide Chen <zide.chen@intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
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>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/7] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Guard against invalid box control address
Date: Thu, 28 May 2026 14:03:14 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6b5428ae-d31f-4a21-b7c2-65b0db00a9e8@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260527151154.130505-2-zide.chen@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>
On 5/27/2026 11:11 PM, Zide Chen wrote:
> Theoretically, intel_uncore_find_discovery_unit() could return NULL,
> e.g., when a CPU die is offline during uncore enumeration and its PMU
> units are not added to the discovery RB-tree.
>
> Guard against a NULL return value and the resulting invalid box control
> address (0) before accessing hardware.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zide Chen <zide.chen@intel.com>
> ---
> V2:
> - New patch.
> - Address pre-existing invalid box control address issue (Sashiko).
> ---
> arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_discovery.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_discovery.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_discovery.c
> index 60e1200c4691..af2217b44a81 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_discovery.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_discovery.c
> @@ -490,17 +490,28 @@ static u64 intel_generic_uncore_box_ctl(struct intel_uncore_box *box)
>
> void intel_generic_uncore_msr_init_box(struct intel_uncore_box *box)
> {
> - wrmsrq(intel_generic_uncore_box_ctl(box), GENERIC_PMON_BOX_CTL_INT);
> + u64 box_ctl = intel_generic_uncore_box_ctl(box);
> +
> + if (!box_ctl)
> + return;
> +
> + wrmsrq(box_ctl, GENERIC_PMON_BOX_CTL_INT);
> }
>
> void intel_generic_uncore_msr_disable_box(struct intel_uncore_box *box)
> {
> - wrmsrq(intel_generic_uncore_box_ctl(box), GENERIC_PMON_BOX_CTL_FRZ);
> + u64 box_ctl = intel_generic_uncore_box_ctl(box);
> +
> + if (box_ctl)
> + wrmsrq(box_ctl, GENERIC_PMON_BOX_CTL_FRZ);
> }
>
> void intel_generic_uncore_msr_enable_box(struct intel_uncore_box *box)
> {
> - wrmsrq(intel_generic_uncore_box_ctl(box), 0);
> + u64 box_ctl = intel_generic_uncore_box_ctl(box);
> +
> + if (box_ctl)
> + wrmsrq(box_ctl, 0);
> }
>
> static void intel_generic_uncore_msr_enable_event(struct intel_uncore_box *box,
> @@ -549,6 +560,10 @@ bool intel_generic_uncore_assign_hw_event(struct perf_event *event,
>
> if (box->pci_dev) {
> box_ctl = UNCORE_DISCOVERY_PCI_BOX_CTRL(box_ctl);
> +
> + if (!box_ctl)
> + return false;
> +
> hwc->config_base = box_ctl + uncore_pci_event_ctl(box, hwc->idx);
> hwc->event_base = box_ctl + uncore_pci_perf_ctr(box, hwc->idx);
> return true;
> @@ -567,27 +582,30 @@ static inline int intel_pci_uncore_box_ctl(struct intel_uncore_box *box)
>
> void intel_generic_uncore_pci_init_box(struct intel_uncore_box *box)
> {
> - struct pci_dev *pdev = box->pci_dev;
> int box_ctl = intel_pci_uncore_box_ctl(box);
>
> + if (!box_ctl)
> + return;
> +
> __set_bit(UNCORE_BOX_FLAG_CTL_OFFS8, &box->flags);
> - pci_write_config_dword(pdev, box_ctl, GENERIC_PMON_BOX_CTL_INT);
> + pci_write_config_dword(box->pci_dev, box_ctl, GENERIC_PMON_BOX_CTL_INT);
> }
>
> void intel_generic_uncore_pci_disable_box(struct intel_uncore_box *box)
> {
> - struct pci_dev *pdev = box->pci_dev;
> int box_ctl = intel_pci_uncore_box_ctl(box);
>
> - pci_write_config_dword(pdev, box_ctl, GENERIC_PMON_BOX_CTL_FRZ);
> + if (box_ctl)
> + pci_write_config_dword(box->pci_dev, box_ctl,
> + GENERIC_PMON_BOX_CTL_FRZ);
> }
>
> void intel_generic_uncore_pci_enable_box(struct intel_uncore_box *box)
> {
> - struct pci_dev *pdev = box->pci_dev;
> int box_ctl = intel_pci_uncore_box_ctl(box);
>
> - pci_write_config_dword(pdev, box_ctl, 0);
> + if (box_ctl)
> + pci_write_config_dword(box->pci_dev, box_ctl, 0);
> }
>
> static void intel_generic_uncore_pci_enable_event(struct intel_uncore_box *box,
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-28 6:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-27 15:11 [PATCH V2 1/7] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Fix discovery unit lookup for multi-die systems Zide Chen
2026-05-27 15:11 ` [PATCH V2 2/7] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Guard against invalid box control address Zide Chen
2026-05-27 17:28 ` sashiko-bot
2026-05-29 18:30 ` Chen, Zide
2026-05-28 6:03 ` Mi, Dapeng [this message]
2026-05-27 15:11 ` [PATCH V2 3/7] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Fix PCI device refcount leak in UPI discovery Zide Chen
2026-05-28 6:34 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-05-27 15:11 ` [PATCH V2 4/7] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Defer ADL global PMON enable to enable_box() Zide Chen
2026-05-27 18:17 ` sashiko-bot
2026-05-28 6:35 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-05-28 18:07 ` Chen, Zide
2026-05-27 15:11 ` [PATCH V2 5/7] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Move die_to_cpu() to uncore.c Zide Chen
2026-05-28 6:36 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-05-29 10:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-05-27 15:11 ` [PATCH V2 6/7] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Fix uncore_die_to_cpu() for offline dies Zide Chen
2026-05-27 19:56 ` sashiko-bot
2026-05-28 6:38 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-05-27 15:11 ` [PATCH V2 7/7] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Implement global init callback for GNR uncore Zide Chen
2026-05-27 20:45 ` sashiko-bot
2026-05-29 18:30 ` Chen, Zide
2026-05-28 6:46 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-05-28 18:14 ` Chen, Zide
2026-05-29 8:47 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-05-29 10:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-05-29 15:03 ` Chen, Zide
2026-05-27 15:45 ` [PATCH V2 1/7] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Fix discovery unit lookup for multi-die systems sashiko-bot
2026-05-29 18:31 ` Chen, Zide
2026-05-28 6:01 ` Mi, Dapeng
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=6b5428ae-d31f-4a21-b7c2-65b0db00a9e8@linux.intel.com \
--to=dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@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=peterz@infradead.org \
--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.