[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1289402233.2084.5.camel@laptop>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:17:13 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Prasad <prasad@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Q: perf_event && event->owner
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 19:57 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Either sys_perf_open() should do get_task_struct() like we currently
> do, or perf_event_exit_task() should clear event->owner and then
> perf_release() should do something like
>
> rcu_read_lock();
> owner = event->owner;
> if (owner)
> get_task_struct(owner);
> rcu_read_unlock();
>
> if (owner) {
> mutex_lock(&event->owner->perf_event_mutex);
> list_del_init(&event->owner_entry);
> mutex_unlock(&event->owner->perf_event_mutex);
> put_task_struct(owner);
> }
>
> Probably this can be simplified...
I think that's still racy, suppose we do:
void perf_event_exit_task(struct task_struct *child)
{
struct perf_event *event, *tmp;
int ctxn;
mutex_lock(&child->perf_event_mutex);
list_for_each_entry_safe(event, tmp, &child->perf_event_list,
owner_entry) {
event->owner = NULL;
list_del_init(&event->owner_entry);
}
mutex_unlock(&child->perf_event_mutex);
for_each_task_context_nr(ctxn)
perf_event_exit_task_context(child, ctxn);
}
and the close() races with an exit, then couldn't we observe
event->owner after the last put_task_struct()? In which case a
get_task_struct() will result in a double-free.
--
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