linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH,RFC] perf: panic due to inclied cpu context task

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:	Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:49:28 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH,RFC] perf: panic due to inclied cpu context task_ctx
 value

On Mon, 2011-03-28 at 16:57 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > 
> > Wait... Yes, we have to clear ctx->is_active, otherwise we break, say,
> > perf_install_in_context().
> > 
> > But if we clear ->is_active we break perf_event_enable(). Suppose we
> > are doing ioctl(PERF_EVENT_IOC_DISABLE) + ioctl(PERF_EVENT_IOC_ENABLE).
> > PERF_EVENT_IOC_DISABLE can sched_out the last event, but _IOC_ENABLE
> > treats ctx->is_active == F as "it is not running".
> 
> Right, same for the tick, if say we can only schedule 1 event at a time
> and we close the 1 event that is active, the tick will not rotate a new
> event in. 

Another fun race, suppose we do properly remove task_ctx and is_active,
but then the task gets scheduled back in before free_event() gets around
to disabling the jump_label..


--
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/