linux-kernel - Re: Q: perf_event && event->owner

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, 12 Nov 2010 16:48:03 +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 Wed, 2010-11-10 at 16:44 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 
> But the code is racy, yes. owner != NULL case is fine. But
> perf_release() can see event->owner == NULL before list_del() was
> completed. perf_event_exit_task() needs wmb() in between, I think.
> 

Utter paranoia took over and I'm still not sure its solid...


---
Subject: perf: Fix owner-list vs exit
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 19:01:43 +0100

Reported-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
LKML-Reference: <1289325703.2191.60.camel@...top>
---
 kernel/perf_event.c |   63 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

Index: linux-2.6/kernel/perf_event.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/kernel/perf_event.c
+++ linux-2.6/kernel/perf_event.c
@@ -2234,11 +2234,6 @@ int perf_event_release_kernel(struct per
 	raw_spin_unlock_irq(&ctx->lock);
 	mutex_unlock(&ctx->mutex);
 
-	mutex_lock(&event->owner->perf_event_mutex);
-	list_del_init(&event->owner_entry);
-	mutex_unlock(&event->owner->perf_event_mutex);
-	put_task_struct(event->owner);
-
 	free_event(event);
 
 	return 0;
@@ -2251,9 +2246,43 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(perf_event_release_ker
 static int perf_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
 {
 	struct perf_event *event = file->private_data;
+	struct task_struct *owner;
 
 	file->private_data = NULL;
 
+	rcu_read_lock();
+	owner = ACCESS_ONCE(event->owner);
+	/*
+	 * Matches the smp_wmb() in perf_event_exit_task(). If we observe
+	 * !owner it means the list deletion is complete and we can indeed
+	 * free this event, otherwise we need to serialize on
+	 * owner->perf_event_mutex.
+	 */
+	smp_read_barrier_depends();
+	if (owner) {
+		/*
+		 * Since delayed_put_task_struct() also drops the last
+		 * task reference we can safely take a new reference
+		 * while holding the rcu_read_lock().
+		 */
+		get_task_struct(owner);
+	}
+	rcu_read_unlock();
+
+	if (owner) {
+		mutex_lock(&owner->perf_event_mutex);
+		/*
+		 * We have to re-check the event->owner field, if it is cleared
+		 * we raced with perf_event_exit_task(), acquiring the mutex
+		 * ensured they're done, and we can proceed with freeing the
+		 * event.
+		 */
+		if (event->owner)
+			list_del_init(&event->owner_entry);
+		mutex_unlock(&owner->perf_event_mutex);
+		put_task_struct(owner);
+	}
+
 	return perf_event_release_kernel(event);
 }
 
@@ -5677,7 +5706,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(perf_event_open,
 	mutex_unlock(&ctx->mutex);
 
 	event->owner = current;
-	get_task_struct(current);
+
 	mutex_lock(&current->perf_event_mutex);
 	list_add_tail(&event->owner_entry, &current->perf_event_list);
 	mutex_unlock(&current->perf_event_mutex);
@@ -5745,12 +5774,6 @@ perf_event_create_kernel_counter(struct
 	++ctx->generation;
 	mutex_unlock(&ctx->mutex);
 
-	event->owner = current;
-	get_task_struct(current);
-	mutex_lock(&current->perf_event_mutex);
-	list_add_tail(&event->owner_entry, &current->perf_event_list);
-	mutex_unlock(&current->perf_event_mutex);
-
 	return event;
 
 err_free:
@@ -5901,8 +5924,24 @@ static void perf_event_exit_task_context
  */
 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) {
+		list_del_init(&event->owner_entry);
+
+		/*
+		 * Ensure the list deletion is visible before we clear
+		 * the owner, closes a race against perf_release() where
+		 * we need to serialize on the owner->perf_event_mutex.
+		 */
+		smp_wmb();
+		event->owner = NULL;
+	}
+	mutex_unlock(&child->perf_event_mutex);
+
 	for_each_task_context_nr(ctxn)
 		perf_event_exit_task_context(child, ctxn);
 }

--
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/