Linux Perf Users
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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,

  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-05-28  6:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ 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
2026-05-28  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
2026-05-27 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
2026-05-27 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
2026-05-28  6:46   ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-05-27 15:45 ` [PATCH V2 1/7] perf/x86/intel/uncore: Fix discovery unit lookup for multi-die systems sashiko-bot
2026-05-28  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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox