From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jan.glauber@caviumnetworks.com (Jan Glauber) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:00:15 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v3 5/5] arm64/perf: Extend event mask for ARMv8.1 In-Reply-To: <20160215200404.GX6298@arm.com> References: <20160215200404.GX6298@arm.com> Message-ID: <20160216080015.GA3490@hardcore> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 08:04:04PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: [...] > On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 06:12:00PM +0100, Jan Glauber wrote: > > + cpu_pmu->event_mask = 0xffff; /* ARMv8.1 extended events */ > > + else > > + cpu_pmu->event_mask = ARMV8_EVTYPE_EVENT; > > ... although can't we just update ARMV8_EVTYPE_EVENT to be 0xffff now? > AFAICT, that just eats into bits that used to be RES0, so we shouldn't > see any problems. That should make your patch *much* simpler! That would of course be easier, but I just can't assess the implications. Probably I'm missing something but to me it looks like the event mask is the only verification we do for the user-space selectable events. Is it safe for implementations that only support 0x3ff events to allow access to the whole 0xffff range? What memory would be accessed for non-existing events? Jan > Will