linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] perf: Synchronously cleanup child events

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:	Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:24:25 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc:	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	vince@...ter.net, eranian@...gle.com,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf: Synchronously cleanup child events

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 05:16:37PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > +struct file *perf_event_get(unsigned int fd)
> >  {
> > +	struct file *file;
> >  
> > +	file = fget_raw(fd);
> 
> fget_raw() to guarantee the return value isn't NULL? afaict the O_PATH
> stuff does not apply to perf events, so you'd put any fd for which the
> distinction matters anyway.
> 
> > +	if (file->f_op != &perf_fops) {
> > +		fput(file);
> > +		return ERR_PTR(-EBADF);
> > +	}
> >  
> > +	return file;
> >  }

It is not possible for one thread to concurrently call close() while
this thread tries to fget() ? In which case, we must check the return
value anyway?