Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 26 May 2015 02:24:38 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] perf,x86: Fix event/group validation | From | Stephane Eranian <> |
| |
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 6:40 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote: > On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 03:29:06PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> @@ -788,9 +788,9 @@ int x86_schedule_events(struct cpu_hw_ev >> x86_pmu.start_scheduling(cpuc); >> >> for (i = 0, wmin = X86_PMC_IDX_MAX, wmax = 0; i < n; i++) { >> + cpuc->event_constraint[i] = NULL; > > ^^^ that is new, which is esp. important in light of the > intel_get_event_constraints() hunk below, which would happily continue > life with a garbage constraint. > You've moved the constraint list from event to cpuc. Yet, it is still an array of pointers to constraints. So here you are saying, that in the case validate_group() is preempted and there is a context switch, there is still a risk of overwriting the constraint? I don't see how because validate_group() is using a fake_cpuc. So yes, the cpuc->event_constraint[] array is modified but it is not the same as the actual cpuc used by non-validate code. Or am I still missing something?
When using dynamic constraints, we already have constraint storage in cpuc (to avoid calling kmalloc() in ctxsw context). Thus, I am wondering if it would not be easier to always use cpuc for constraint storage (no more pointers).
>> c = x86_pmu.get_event_constraints(cpuc, i, cpuc->event_list[i]); >> + cpuc->event_constraint[i] = c; >> >> wmin = min(wmin, c->weight); >> wmax = max(wmax, c->weight); > > >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c >> @@ -2106,7 +2106,7 @@ static struct event_constraint * >> intel_get_event_constraints(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc, int idx, >> struct perf_event *event) >> { >> - struct event_constraint *c1 = event->hw.constraint; >> + struct event_constraint *c1 = cpuc->event_constraint[idx]; >> struct event_constraint *c2; >> >> /*
| |