>
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 8:03 AM, Liang, Kan <kan.liang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> > +
> >> > +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].
>
> Where? All I see is:
>
> + if (cfg >= PERF_MSR_EVENT_MAX)
> + return -EINVAL;
Yes, we check cfg here. So msr[cfg] should be always available.
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��ة��)�� jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
|