linux-kernel - Re: BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code: asm/8267

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:42:56 +0100
From:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible [00000000] code:
 asm/8267

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:49:32AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 03:02:10PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> > > --
> > > diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> > > index 7b4a55d41efc..f3bb3384a106 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> > > @@ -4455,8 +4455,11 @@ static void perf_event_task_event(struct perf_task_event *task_event)
> > >  next:
> > >  		put_cpu_ptr(pmu->pmu_cpu_context);
> > >  	}
> > > +
> > > +	preempt_disable();
> > >  	if (task_event->task_ctx)
> > >  		perf_event_task_ctx(task_event->task_ctx, task_event);
> > > +	preempt_enable();
> 
> Ok, just for my own understanding: how do the events on the
> ->task_ctx->event_list relate to the current cpu in this path? I mean,
> we're on the task exit path here so is it possible to be rescheduled
> somewhere else and the check in event_filter_match to become
> meaningless?
> 
> Because with this fix, we have a small window between enabling
> preemption after the last pmu context and disabling it again to get
> moved somewhere else.

hm, at that point we have 'task_event->task_ctx' detached from
the task and all events on it are owned by the task

so I wonder maybe we could eliminate the preempt switch and make
a special case for task context, saying all event match for it,
something like in patch below (untested)

because if we keep the check we could endup with no EXIT event,
just because the exit code was scheduled on another cpu
(for task events with specified cpu)

also that's probably what we want to do in here - send EXIT
event for any task event that asked for it

the output code in perf_event_task_output is guarding
the preemption by itself

jirka


---
diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
index 7b4a55d..8414bcf 100644
--- a/kernel/events/core.c
+++ b/kernel/events/core.c
@@ -4403,12 +4403,12 @@ out:
 	task_event->event_id.header.size = size;
 }
 
-static int perf_event_task_match(struct perf_event *event)
+static int perf_event_task_match(struct perf_event *event, int match)
 {
 	if (event->state < PERF_EVENT_STATE_INACTIVE)
 		return 0;
 
-	if (!event_filter_match(event))
+	if (!match && !event_filter_match(event))
 		return 0;
 
 	if (event->attr.comm || event->attr.mmap ||
@@ -4419,12 +4419,13 @@ static int perf_event_task_match(struct perf_event *event)
 }
 
 static void perf_event_task_ctx(struct perf_event_context *ctx,
-				  struct perf_task_event *task_event)
+				  struct perf_task_event *task_event,
+				int match)
 {
 	struct perf_event *event;
 
 	list_for_each_entry_rcu(event, &ctx->event_list, event_entry) {
-		if (perf_event_task_match(event))
+		if (perf_event_task_match(event, match))
 			perf_event_task_output(event, task_event);
 	}
 }
@@ -4441,7 +4442,7 @@ static void perf_event_task_event(struct perf_task_event *task_event)
 		cpuctx = get_cpu_ptr(pmu->pmu_cpu_context);
 		if (cpuctx->unique_pmu != pmu)
 			goto next;
-		perf_event_task_ctx(&cpuctx->ctx, task_event);
+		perf_event_task_ctx(&cpuctx->ctx, task_event, 0);
 
 		ctx = task_event->task_ctx;
 		if (!ctx) {
@@ -4450,13 +4451,13 @@ static void perf_event_task_event(struct perf_task_event *task_event)
 				goto next;
 			ctx = rcu_dereference(current->perf_event_ctxp[ctxn]);
 			if (ctx)
-				perf_event_task_ctx(ctx, task_event);
+				perf_event_task_ctx(ctx, task_event, 0);
 		}
 next:
 		put_cpu_ptr(pmu->pmu_cpu_context);
 	}
 	if (task_event->task_ctx)
-		perf_event_task_ctx(task_event->task_ctx, task_event);
+		perf_event_task_ctx(task_event->task_ctx, task_event, 1);
 
 	rcu_read_unlock();
 }
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/