On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Liang, Kan <kan.liang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>
PERF_MSR_EVENT_MAX is a constant. If I run this thing on an AMD CPU
that supports TSC, APERF, MPERF, and nothing else, and someone asks
for PPERF, then the check will succeed and we'll oops, right?
--Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|