linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 5/6] perf: Fix race in callchains

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:	Fri, 02 Jul 2010 20:07:35 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/6] perf: Fix race in callchains

On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 17:36 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Now that software events don't have interrupt disabled anymore in
> the event path, callchains can nest on any context. So seperating
> nmi and others contexts in two buffers has become racy.
> 
> Fix this by providing one buffer per nesting level. Given the size
> of the callchain entries (2040 bytes * 4), we now need to allocate
> them dynamically.

OK so I guess you want to allocate them because 8k per cpu is too much
to always have about?

> +static int get_callchain_buffers(void)
> +{
> +	int i;
> +	int err = 0;
> +	struct perf_callchain_entry_cpus *buf;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&callchain_mutex);
> +
> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(++nr_callchain_events < 1)) {
> +		err = -EINVAL;
> +		goto exit;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (nr_callchain_events > 1)
> +		goto exit;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
> +		buf = kzalloc(sizeof(*buf), GFP_KERNEL);
> +		/* free_event() will clean the rest */
> +		if (!buf) {
> +			err = -ENOMEM;
> +			goto exit;
> +		}
> +		buf->entries = alloc_percpu(struct perf_callchain_entry);
> +		if (!buf->entries) {
> +			kfree(buf);
> +			err = -ENOMEM;
> +			goto exit;
> +		}
> +		rcu_assign_pointer(callchain_entries[i], buf);
> +	}
> +
> +exit:
> +	mutex_unlock(&callchain_mutex);
> +
> +	return err;
> +}

> +static void put_callchain_buffers(void)
> +{
> +	int i;
> +	struct perf_callchain_entry_cpus *entry;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&callchain_mutex);
> +
> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(--nr_callchain_events < 0))
> +		goto exit;
> +
> +	if (nr_callchain_events > 0)
> +		goto exit;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
> +		entry = callchain_entries[i];
> +		if (entry) {
> +			callchain_entries[i] = NULL;
> +			call_rcu(&entry->rcu_head, release_callchain_buffers);
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +exit:
> +	mutex_unlock(&callchain_mutex);
> +}

If you make nr_callchain_events an atomic_t, then you can do the
refcounting outside the mutex. See the existing user of
atomic_dec_and_mutex_lock().

I would also split it in get/put and alloc/free functions for clarity.

I'm not at all sure why you're using RCU though.

> @@ -1895,6 +2072,8 @@ static void free_event(struct perf_event *event)
>  			atomic_dec(&nr_comm_events);
>  		if (event->attr.task)
>  			atomic_dec(&nr_task_events);
> +		if (event->attr.sample_type & PERF_SAMPLE_CALLCHAIN)
> +			put_callchain_buffers();
>  	}
>  
>  	if (event->buffer) {

If this was the last even, there's no callchain user left, so nobody can
be here:

> @@ -3480,14 +3610,20 @@ static void perf_event_output(struct perf_event *event, int nmi,
>  	struct perf_output_handle handle;
>  	struct perf_event_header header;
>  
> +	/* protect the callchain buffers */
> +	rcu_read_lock();
> +
>  	perf_prepare_sample(&header, data, event, regs);
>  
>  	if (perf_output_begin(&handle, event, header.size, nmi, 1))
> -		return;
> +		goto exit;
>  
>  	perf_output_sample(&handle, &header, data, event);
>  
>  	perf_output_end(&handle);
> +
> +exit:
> +	rcu_read_unlock();
>  }

Rendering that RCU stuff superfluous.


--
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/