| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 12:17:40 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Lukasz Odzioba <lukasz.odzioba@...el.com>,
Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>, kernel-team@....com
Subject: [PATCHv3 4/4] perf tools: Fix struct comm_str removal crash
On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:20:55AM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi Arnaldo,
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 03:31:14PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 03:28:43PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo escreveu:
> > > Em Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 04:33:45PM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> > > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/comm.c
> > > > @@ -18,11 +18,9 @@ struct comm_str {
> > > > static struct rb_root comm_str_root;
> > > > static struct rw_semaphore comm_str_lock = {.lock = PTHREAD_RWLOCK_INITIALIZER,};
> > > >
> > > > -static struct comm_str *comm_str__get(struct comm_str *cs)
> > > > +static bool comm_str__get(struct comm_str *cs)
> > > > {
> > > > - if (cs)
> > > > - refcount_inc(&cs->refcnt);
> > > > - return cs;
> > > > + return cs ? refcount_inc_not_zero(&cs->refcnt) : false;
> > > > }
> > >
> > > I don't like changing the semantics of a __get() operation this way, I
> > > think it should stay like all the others, i.e. return the object with
> > > the desired refcount or return NULL if that is not possible.
> > >
> > > Otherwise we'll have to switch gears when debugging refcounts in various
> > > objects, that start having slightly different semantics for reference
> > > counting.
> > >
> > > We should try to find a fix that maintains the semantics of refcounting.
> >
> > After looking at the code, this refcount_inc_not_zero returns bool comes
> > from the kernel, trying to see how this is used with __get() operations
> > there, if at all.
>
> Something like this?
>
> static struct comm_str *comm_str__get(struct comm_str *cs)
> {
> if (cs && refcount_inc_not_zero(&cs->refcnt))
> return cs;
> return NULL;
> }
>
>
> Other than that I don't have better idea, so
>
> Acked-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
>
> Thanks,
> Namhyung
righ, we can change comm_str__get like that, attached v3
thanks,
jirka
---
We occasionaly hit following assert failure in perf top,
when processing the /proc info in multiple threads.
perf: ...include/linux/refcount.h:109: refcount_inc:
Assertion `!(!refcount_inc_not_zero(r))' failed.
The gdb backtrace looks like this:
[Switching to Thread 0x7ffff11ba700 (LWP 13749)]
0x00007ffff50839fb in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6
(gdb)
#0 0x00007ffff50839fb in raise () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#1 0x00007ffff5085800 in abort () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#2 0x00007ffff507c0da in __assert_fail_base () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#3 0x00007ffff507c152 in __assert_fail () from /lib64/libc.so.6
#4 0x0000000000535373 in refcount_inc (r=0x7fffdc009be0)
at ...include/linux/refcount.h:109
#5 0x00000000005354f1 in comm_str__get (cs=0x7fffdc009bc0)
at util/comm.c:24
#6 0x00000000005356bd in __comm_str__findnew (str=0x7fffd000b260 ":2",
root=0xbed5c0 <comm_str_root>) at util/comm.c:72
#7 0x000000000053579e in comm_str__findnew (str=0x7fffd000b260 ":2",
root=0xbed5c0 <comm_str_root>) at util/comm.c:95
#8 0x000000000053582e in comm__new (str=0x7fffd000b260 ":2",
timestamp=0, exec=false) at util/comm.c:111
#9 0x00000000005363bc in thread__new (pid=2, tid=2) at util/thread.c:57
#10 0x0000000000523da0 in ____machine__findnew_thread (machine=0xbfde38,
threads=0xbfdf28, pid=2, tid=2, create=true) at util/machine.c:457
#11 0x0000000000523eb4 in __machine__findnew_thread (machine=0xbfde38,
...
The failing assertion is this one:
REFCOUNT_WARN(!refcount_inc_not_zero(r), ...
The problem is that we keep global comm_str_root list, which
is accessed by multiple threads during the perf top startup
and following 2 paths can race:
thread 1:
...
thread__new
comm__new
comm_str__findnew
down_write(&comm_str_lock);
__comm_str__findnew
comm_str__get
thread 2:
...
comm__override or comm__free
comm_str__put
refcount_dec_and_test
down_write(&comm_str_lock);
rb_erase(&cs->rb_node, &comm_str_root);
Because thread 2 first decrements the refcnt and only after then it
removes the struct comm_str from the list, the thread 1 can find this
object on the list with refcnt equls to 0 and hit the assert.
This patch fixes the thread 1 __comm_str__findnew path, by ignoring
objects that already dropped the refcnt to 0. For the rest of the
objects we take the refcnt before comparing its name and release
it afterwards with comm_str__put, which can also release the object
completely.
Acked-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/n/tip-vrizt6sw1lu1ybsrl9l0wwln@git.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
---
tools/perf/util/comm.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/comm.c b/tools/perf/util/comm.c
index 7798a2cc8a86..31279a7bd919 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/comm.c
+++ b/tools/perf/util/comm.c
@@ -20,9 +20,10 @@ static struct rw_semaphore comm_str_lock = {.lock = PTHREAD_RWLOCK_INITIALIZER,}
static struct comm_str *comm_str__get(struct comm_str *cs)
{
- if (cs)
- refcount_inc(&cs->refcnt);
- return cs;
+ if (cs && refcount_inc_not_zero(&cs->refcnt))
+ return cs;
+
+ return NULL;
}
static void comm_str__put(struct comm_str *cs)
@@ -67,9 +68,14 @@ struct comm_str *__comm_str__findnew(const char *str, struct rb_root *root)
parent = *p;
iter = rb_entry(parent, struct comm_str, rb_node);
+ /*
+ * If we race with comm_str__put, iter->refcnt is 0
+ * and it will be removed within comm_str__put call
+ * shortly, ignore it in this search.
+ */
cmp = strcmp(str, iter->str);
- if (!cmp)
- return comm_str__get(iter);
+ if (!cmp && comm_str__get(iter))
+ return iter;
if (cmp < 0)
p = &(*p)->rb_left;
--
2.17.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists