From: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 2/2] perf/x86: Reset the dirty counter to prevent the leak for an RDPMC task
Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 09:48:49 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ff0eab70-a34a-c82c-5490-0280bb75ce94@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAL_JsqJ8WtTykBPiN6tm=oDPeypChnsSQr-2BpDjXGfmuKXnrg@mail.gmail.com>
On 5/13/2021 11:50 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 5:14 PM Liang, Kan <kan.liang@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/13/2021 11:02 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 07:23:02AM -0700, kan.liang@linux.intel.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> + if (x86_pmu.sched_task && event->hw.target) {
>>>> + atomic_inc(&event->pmu->sched_cb_usage);
>>>> + local_irq_save(flags);
>>>> + x86_pmu_clear_dirty_counters();
>>>> + local_irq_restore(flags);
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> So what happens if our mmap() happens after we've already created two
>>> (or more) threads in the process, all of who already have a counter (or
>>> more) on?
>>>
>>> Shouldn't this be something like?
>>
>> That's not enough.
>>
>> I implemented a test case as below:
>> - The main thread A creates a new thread B.
>> - Bind the thread A to CPU 0. Then the thread A opens a event, mmap,
>> enable the event, and sleep.
>> - Bind the thread B to CPU 1. Wait until the event in the thread A is
>> enabled. Then RDPMC can read the counters on CPU 1.
>>
>> In the x86_pmu_event_mapped(), we do on_each_cpu_mask(mm_cpumask(mm),
>> cr4_update_pce, NULL, 1);
>> The RDPMC from thread B on CPU 1 is not forbidden.
>
> You want RDPMC disabled since the counters are not cleared? If you had
> a cpu bound event for CPU1, then you'd want RDPMC enabled, right?
>
Since we are trying to use a lazy way to clear the counters, I think the
RDPMC should be enabled only for a user who owns the counters.
For the above case, we only perf_event_open(pid = 0, cpu = -1) an event
in the thread A. Perf should only monitor the thread A. The RDPMC should
be enabled only when the thread A is scheduled in.
The thread B doesn't open any events. The RDPMC should be disabled for
the thread B. Otherwise, it can read any counters on the CPU, including
other task-bound events, which is what the patchset intends to prevent.
>> Since the counter is not created in thread B, the sched_task() never
>> gets a chance to be invoked. The dirty counter is not cleared.
>>
>> To fix it, I think we have to move the cr4_update_pce() to the context
>> switch, and update it only when the RDPMC task is scheduled. But it
>> probably brings some overhead.
>
> I'm trying to do a similar approach (if I understand what you mean)
> using sched_task() without a switch_mm hook or IPIs. The current
> branch is here[1]. I have things working for task bound events, but I
> don't think cpu bound events are handled for similar reasons as above.
> I'm not too sure that enabling user access for cpu bound events is
> really all that useful? Maybe for Arm we should just keep user access
> for cpu bound events disabled.
>
> Note for now I'm not doing lazy clearing of counters for simplicity.
If we don't use the lazy way, I think we can clear the counters when a
task is scheduled out. I don't think we need to worry about the above case.
Thanks,
Kan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-14 13:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-13 14:23 [PATCH V7 1/2] perf: Track per-PMU sched_task() callback users kan.liang
2021-05-13 14:23 ` [PATCH V7 2/2] perf/x86: Reset the dirty counter to prevent the leak for an RDPMC task kan.liang
2021-05-13 15:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-13 22:14 ` Liang, Kan
2021-05-14 3:50 ` Rob Herring
2021-05-14 13:48 ` Liang, Kan [this message]
2021-05-14 14:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-05-14 15:30 ` Liang, Kan
2021-05-13 14:42 ` [PATCH V7 1/2] perf: Track per-PMU sched_task() callback users Peter Zijlstra
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=ff0eab70-a34a-c82c-5490-0280bb75ce94@linux.intel.com \
--to=kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
/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