Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 09/11] perf/cxl: Validate the hardware-reported counter width
[email protected] Wed, 05 Aug 2026 16:16:35 +0000
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-cxl,org.kernel.vger.linux-perf-users |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider: Pre-existing issues: - [High] Race condition between manual perf event reads and the PMU overflow interrupt handler causes spurious full-period additions. - [High] Missing cleanup of the hardware overflow status bit when stopping or starting a counter leads to massive overcounting for subsequently scheduled events. -- --- Patch [9]: [RESEND PATCH v4 09/11] perf/cxl: Validate the hardware-reported counter width --- commit 194e381f35d23ddbc6cc781235e1bc6b38fb673a Author: Dave Jiang <[email protected]> perf/cxl: Validate the hardware-reported counter width cxl_pmu_parse_caps() takes the Counter Width straight from the CPMU Capability register without a bounds check. Reject a counter width outside 1..64 at probe to prevent shifting out of range. Closes: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=1 > diff --git a/drivers/perf/cxl_pmu.c b/drivers/perf/cxl_pmu.c > index a081fcba69917..84ebc7da181d5 100644 > --- a/drivers/perf/cxl_pmu.c > +++ b/drivers/perf/cxl_pmu.c > @@ -142,6 +142,15 @@ static int cxl_pmu_parse_caps(struct device *dev, struct cxl_pmu_info *info) > > info->num_counters = FIELD_GET(CXL_PMU_CAP_NUM_COUNTERS_MSK, val) + 1; > info->counter_width = FIELD_GET(CXL_PMU_CAP_COUNTER_WIDTH_MSK, val); > + /* > + * The Counter Data register is 64 bits wide, so a Counter Width of 0 or > + * >64 is invalid. Reject it rather than let GENMASK_ULL(width - 1, 0) in > + * the read path shift out of range. > + */ > + if (info->counter_width == 0 || info->counter_width > 64) { > + dev_err(dev, "Invalid counter width %d\n", info->counter_width); > + return -ENODEV; > + } > info->num_event_capabilities = FIELD_GET(CXL_PMU_CAP_NUM_EVN_CAP_REG_SUP_MSK, val) + 1; > > info->filter_hdm = FIELD_GET(CXL_PMU_CAP_FILTERS_SUP_MSK, val) & CXL_PMU_FILTER_HDM; [Severity: High] This is a pre-existing issue, but can a race condition between manual perf event reads and the PMU overflow interrupt handler cause spurious additions? drivers/perf/cxl_pmu.c:__cxl_pmu_read() { ... mask = GENMASK_ULL(info->counter_width - 1, 0); delta = (new_cnt - prev_cnt) & mask; if (overflow && new_cnt >= prev_cnt) delta += mask + 1; ... } If a hardware counter wraps and asserts the PMU interrupt, and a manual read occurs before the interrupt handler executes, the manual read handles the wrap natively via 2's complement subtraction and updates prev_count. When the IRQ handler subsequently runs, it sees the stale hardware overflow bit still set and evaluates new_cnt >= prev_cnt. Will it then spuriously add a full period (mask + 1) to the event count? [Severity: High] This is a pre-existing issue, but does missing cleanup of the hardware overflow status bit when stopping or starting a counter lead to overcounting for subsequently scheduled events? drivers/perf/cxl_pmu.c:cxl_pmu_event_stop() { ... cfg &= ~(FIELD_PREP(CXL_PMU_COUNTER_CFG_INT_ON_OVRFLW, 1) | FIELD_PREP(CXL_PMU_COUNTER_CFG_ENABLE, 1)); writeq(cfg, base + CXL_PMU_COUNTER_CFG_REG(hwc->idx)); ... } If cxl_pmu_event_stop disables a counter's interrupt but does not clear the hardware overflow status bit in CXL_PMU_OVERFLOW_REG, the bit remains set. drivers/perf/cxl_pmu.c:cxl_pmu_event_start() { ... cfg |= FIELD_PREP(CXL_PMU_COUNTER_CFG_INT_ON_OVRFLW, 1); cfg |= FIELD_PREP(CXL_PMU_COUNTER_CFG_FREEZE_ON_OVRFLW, 1); cfg |= FIELD_PREP(CXL_PMU_COUNTER_CFG_ENABLE, 1); ... } When cxl_pmu_event_start later reuses the counter index for a new event, it initializes the counter to 0 and re-enables the interrupt without clearing the pending overflow bit. Could the IRQ handler process the stale overflow bit and incorrectly add mask + 1 to the new event's count? -- Sashiko AI review ยท https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=9