[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1242981131.26820.620.camel@twins>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 10:32:11 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Corey Ashford <cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf_counter: optimize context switch between
identical inherited contexts
On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 14:27 +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> The equivalence of contexts is detected by keeping a pointer in
> each cloned context pointing to the context it was cloned from.
> To cope with the situation where a context is changed by adding
> or removing counters after it has been cloned, we also keep a
> generation number on each context which is incremented every time
> a context is changed. When a context is cloned we take a copy
> of the parent's generation number, and two cloned contexts are
> equivalent only if they have the same parent and the same
> generation number. In order that the parent context pointer
> remains valid (and is not reused), we increment the parent
> context's reference count for each context cloned from it.
> + u32 generation;
Suppose someone writes a malicious proglet that inherits the counters,
puts the child to sleep, does 2^32 mods on the counter set, and then
wakes up the child.
Would that merely corrupt the results, or make the kernel explode?
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists