linux-kernel - Re: Q: perf_install_in_context/perf_event

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: <20110128162847.GA25088@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 28 Jan 2011 17:28:47 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	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_install_in_context/perf_event_enable are racy?

On 01/28, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2011-01-28 at 12:52 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Right, so in case the perf_event_task_sched_in() missed the assignment
> > of ->perf_event_ctxp[n], then our above story falls flat on its face.
> >
> > Because then we can not rely on ->in_active being set for running tasks.
> >
> > So we need a task_curr() test under that lock, which would need
> > perf_event_task_sched_out() to be done _before_ we set rq->curr = next,
> > I _think_.
>
> Ok, so how about something like this:
>
> if task_oncpu_function_call() managed to execute the function proper,
> we're done. Otherwise, if while holding the lock, task_curr() is true,
> it means the task is now current and we should try again, if its not, it
> cannot become current because us holding ctx->lock blocks
> perf_event_task_sched_in().
>
> Hmm?

I _feel_ this patch should be right. To me, this even makes the code
more understandable. But I'll try to re-read it once again, somehow
I can't concentrace today.

> @@ -1031,25 +1032,29 @@ perf_install_in_context(struct perf_event_context *ctx,
>  	}
>
>  retry:
> -	task_oncpu_function_call(task, __perf_install_in_context,
> -				 event);
> +	ret = task_oncpu_function_call(task,
> +			__perf_install_in_context, event);
> +
> +	if (!ret)
> +		return;
>
>  	raw_spin_lock_irq(&ctx->lock);
> +
>  	/*
> -	 * we need to retry the smp call.
> +	 * If the task_oncpu_function_call() failed, re-check task_curr() now
> +	 * that we hold ctx->lock(), if it is running retry the IPI.
>  	 */
> -	if (ctx->is_active && list_empty(&event->group_entry)) {
> +	if (task_curr(task)) {

Yes, but task_curr() should be exported.

One note. If this patch is correct (I think it is), then this check
in __perf_install_in_context() and __perf_event_enable()

		if (cpuctx->task_ctx || ctx->task != current)
			return;

should become unneeded. It should be removed or turned into WARN_ON()
imho, otherwise it looks confusing.

Oleg.

--
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/