> > +
> > +enum perf_msr_id {
> > + PERF_MSR_TSC = 0,
> > + PERF_MSR_APERF = 1,
> > + PERF_MSR_MPERF = 2,
> > + PERF_MSR_PPERF = 3,
> > + PERF_MSR_SMI = 4,
> > +
> > + PERF_MSR_EVENT_MAX,
> > +};
> > +
> > +struct perf_msr {
> > + int id;
> > + u64 msr;
> > +};
> > +
> > +static struct perf_msr msr[] = {
> > + { PERF_MSR_TSC, 0 },
> > + { PERF_MSR_APERF, MSR_IA32_APERF },
> > + { PERF_MSR_MPERF, MSR_IA32_MPERF },
> > + { PERF_MSR_PPERF, MSR_PPERF },
> > + { PERF_MSR_SMI, MSR_SMI_COUNT }, };
>
> I think this could be easier to work with if it were [PERF_MSR_TSC] = {...},
> etc. No big deal, though, until the list gets long. However, it might make
> fixing the apparent issue below easier...
>
> > +static int msr_event_init(struct perf_event *event) {
> > + u64 cfg = event->attr.config;
>
> ...
>
> > + event->hw.event_base = msr[cfg].msr;
>
> Shouldn't this verify that the fancy enumeration code actually believes that
> msr[cfg] exists on this system? Otherwise we might have a very short wait
> until the perf fuzzer oopses this thing :)
>
I think we already did the check before using msr[cfg].
> +
> + if (cfg >= PERF_MSR_EVENT_MAX)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
Kan
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��ة��)�� jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
|