linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/5] perf: Support disable() after stop() on software 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]

Message-ID: <1276167017.2077.100.camel@twins>
Date:	Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:50:17 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
	Zhang Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] perf: Support disable() after stop() on software
 events

On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 05:49 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> If we call perf_event_stop() on a software event and then the
> disable() pmu callback on them after that, we'll call twice
> hlist_del_rcu() on the same hlist node and then bring a crash
> by dereferencing LIST_POISON2.
> 
> Just use hlist_del_init_rcu() instead to fix this problem.
> 
> This preparates for new context exclusions.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
> Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
> Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
> Cc: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
> Cc: Zhang Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
> Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
> ---
>  kernel/perf_event.c             |    2 +-
>  kernel/trace/trace_event_perf.c |    2 +-
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/perf_event.c b/kernel/perf_event.c
> index 5c004f7..2d818bc 100644
> --- a/kernel/perf_event.c
> +++ b/kernel/perf_event.c
> @@ -4291,7 +4291,7 @@ static int perf_swevent_enable(struct perf_event *event)
>  
>  static void perf_swevent_disable(struct perf_event *event)
>  {
> -	hlist_del_rcu(&event->hlist_entry);
> +	hlist_del_init_rcu(&event->hlist_entry);
>  }
>  
>  static void perf_swevent_void(struct perf_event *event)
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_event_perf.c b/kernel/trace/trace_event_perf.c
> index 4799d70..7bc1f26 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/trace_event_perf.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_event_perf.c
> @@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ int perf_trace_enable(struct perf_event *p_event)
>  
>  void perf_trace_disable(struct perf_event *p_event)
>  {
> -	hlist_del_rcu(&p_event->hlist_entry);
> +	hlist_del_init_rcu(&p_event->hlist_entry);
>  }
>  
>  void perf_trace_destroy(struct perf_event *p_event)


Ok, so then why did you need the first patch?
--
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/