Patch "perf/x86: Fix lockdep warning in for_each_sibling_event() on SPR" has been added to the 6.4-stable tree

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled

    perf/x86: Fix lockdep warning in for_each_sibling_event() on SPR

to the 6.4-stable tree which can be found at:
    http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary

The filename of the patch is:
     perf-x86-fix-lockdep-warning-in-for_each_sibling_event-on-spr.patch
and it can be found in the queue-6.4 subdirectory.

If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> know about it.


>From 27c68c216ee1f1b086e789a64486e6511e380b8a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2023 11:15:15 -0700
Subject: perf/x86: Fix lockdep warning in for_each_sibling_event() on SPR

From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx>

commit 27c68c216ee1f1b086e789a64486e6511e380b8a upstream.

On SPR, the load latency event needs an auxiliary event in the same
group to work properly.  There's a check in intel_pmu_hw_config()
for this to iterate sibling events and find a mem-loads-aux event.

The for_each_sibling_event() has a lockdep assert to make sure if it
disabled hardirq or hold leader->ctx->mutex.  This works well if the
given event has a separate leader event since perf_try_init_event()
grabs the leader->ctx->mutex to protect the sibling list.  But it can
cause a problem when the event itself is a leader since the event is
not initialized yet and there's no ctx for the event.

Actually I got a lockdep warning when I run the below command on SPR,
but I guess it could be a NULL pointer dereference.

  $ perf record -d -e cpu/mem-loads/uP true

The code path to the warning is:

  sys_perf_event_open()
    perf_event_alloc()
      perf_init_event()
        perf_try_init_event()
          x86_pmu_event_init()
            hsw_hw_config()
              intel_pmu_hw_config()
                for_each_sibling_event()
                  lockdep_assert_event_ctx()

We don't need for_each_sibling_event() when it's a standalone event.
Let's return the error code directly.

Fixes: f3c0eba28704 ("perf: Add a few assertions")
Reported-by: Greg Thelen <gthelen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230704181516.3293665-1-namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
 arch/x86/events/intel/core.c |    7 +++++++
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

--- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
+++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
@@ -3993,6 +3993,13 @@ static int intel_pmu_hw_config(struct pe
 		struct perf_event *leader = event->group_leader;
 		struct perf_event *sibling = NULL;
 
+		/*
+		 * When this memload event is also the first event (no group
+		 * exists yet), then there is no aux event before it.
+		 */
+		if (leader == event)
+			return -ENODATA;
+
 		if (!is_mem_loads_aux_event(leader)) {
 			for_each_sibling_event(sibling, leader) {
 				if (is_mem_loads_aux_event(sibling))


Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx are

queue-6.4/perf-x86-fix-lockdep-warning-in-for_each_sibling_event-on-spr.patch



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux