So far, we tried to disallow grouping exclusive events for the fear of
complications they would cause with moving between contexts. Specifically,
moving a software group to a hardware context would violate the exclusivity
rules if both groups contain matching exclusive events.

This attempt was, however, unsuccessful: the check that we have in the
perf_event_open() syscall is both wrong (looks at wrong PMU) and
insufficient (group leader may still be exclusive), as can be illustrated
by running:

  $ perf record -e '{intel_pt//,cycles}' uname
  $ perf record -e '{cycles,intel_pt//}' uname

ultimately successfully.

Furthermore, we are completely free to trigger the exclusivity violation
by:

   perf -e '{cycles,intel_pt//}' -e '{intel_pt//,instructions}'

even though the helpful perf record will not allow that, the ABI will.

The warning later in the perf_event_open() path will also not trigger, because
it's also wrong.

Fix all this by validating the original group before moving, getting rid
of broken safeguards and placing a useful one to perf_install_in_context().
Signed-off-by: NAlexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@maine.edu>
Cc: mathieu.poirier@linaro.org
Cc: will.deacon@arm.com
Fixes: bed5b25a ("perf: Add a pmu capability for "exclusive" events")
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190701110755.24646-1-alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.comSigned-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>