linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf_counter: Check task on counter read IPI

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <19081.8782.92022.727631@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:26:38 +1000
From:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf_counter: Check task on counter read IPI

Peter Zijlstra writes:

> > I don't have an example of an actual failure due to this race, but it
> > seems obvious that it could occur and we need to guard against it, so
> > I think this should go in .31.
> 
> Hmm, right.
> 
> However those other sites have retry loops in the caller, but callers of
> __perf_counter_read() do not. Granted, I'm not sure what they should
> retry on exactly, but this patch trades an invalid update to a missing
> update.

It relies on the counter sched-out updating ->count for all the
counters on the task.  We know that the sched-out happened very
recently, i.e. in the interval between deciding to send the IPI and
the IPI arriving.  So the counter value should be sufficiently up to
date.  Ingo pointed this out to me some time ago.

I tried to address that in the comments and the patch description but
perhaps I wasn't explicit enough.

Paul.
--
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/