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: 31+ 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 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 4:39 ` [Patch v5 04/18] perf/x86/intel/lbr: " Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 4:39 ` [Patch v5 05/18] perf/x86: Add lbr_enabled to track LBR state Dapeng Mi
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 4:39 ` [Patch v5 08/18] perf/x86/intel: Avoid re-enabling PMU and LBR for BPF when disabled Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 4:39 ` [Patch v5 09/18] perf/x86/intel: Keep LBR frozen throughout PMI handling Dapeng Mi
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 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 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 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 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 4:39 ` [Patch v5 15/18] perf/x86/intel: Clear raw LBR counters in the LBR stack Dapeng Mi
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 4:39 ` [Patch v5 17/18] perf/x86/intel: Pass LBR stack size into store_lbr() Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 4:39 ` [Patch v5 18/18] perf/core: Don't overwrite shared LBR stack depth Dapeng Mi
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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox