| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CABPqkBS-fio57xePQ76LLxPxVMJRM1cKzU1DgXH7q9oNG54N8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 12:50:21 +0000
From: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, shaohua.li@...el.com, ak@...ux.intel.com,
mhocko@...e.cz, alex.shi@...el.com, efault@....de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL rcu/next] RCU commits for 3.1
Paul,
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 2:37 AM, Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> (I shoud have cced Stephane Eranian instead of Turner..)
>
> Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 04:09:19PM +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
>>> (Let's cc Peter and Paul Turner for this perf cgroup issue.)
>>>
>>>> Thank you for the analysis. Does the following patch fix this problem?
>>>>
>>>> Thanx, Paul
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> fs: Add RCU protection in set_task_comm()
>>>>
>>>> Running "perf stat true" results in the following RCU-lockdep splat:
>>>>
>>>> ===============================
>>>> [ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]
>>>> -------------------------------
>>>> include/linux/cgroup.h:548 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!
>>>>
>>>> other info that might help us debug this:
>>>>
>>>> rcu_scheduler_active = 1, debug_locks = 0
>>>> 1 lock held by true/655:
>>>> #0: (&sig->cred_guard_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<810d1bd7>] prepare_bprm_creds+0x27/0x70
>>>>
>>>> stack backtrace:
>>>> Pid: 655, comm: true Not tainted 3.1.0-tip-01868-g1271bd2-dirty #161079
>>>> Call Trace:
>>>> [<81abe239>] ? printk+0x18/0x1a
>>>> [<81064920>] lockdep_rcu_suspicious+0xc0/0xd0
>>>> [<8108aa02>] perf_event_enable_on_exec+0x1d2/0x1e0
>>>> [<81063764>] ? __lock_release+0x54/0xb0
>>>> [<8108cca8>] perf_event_comm+0x18/0x60
>>>> [<810d1abd>] ? set_task_comm+0x5d/0x80
>>>> [<81af622d>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x1d/0x40
>>>> [<810d1ac4>] set_task_comm+0x64/0x80
>>>> [<810d25fd>] setup_new_exec+0xbd/0x1d0
>>>> [<810d1b61>] ? flush_old_exec+0x81/0xa0
>>>> [<8110753e>] load_elf_binary+0x28e/0xa00
>>>> [<810d2101>] ? search_binary_handler+0xd1/0x1d0
>>>> [<81063764>] ? __lock_release+0x54/0xb0
>>>> [<811072b0>] ? load_elf_library+0x260/0x260
>>>> [<810d2108>] search_binary_handler+0xd8/0x1d0
>>>> [<810d2060>] ? search_binary_handler+0x30/0x1d0
>>>> [<810d242f>] do_execve_common+0x22f/0x2a0
>>>> [<810d24b2>] do_execve+0x12/0x20
>>>> [<81009592>] sys_execve+0x32/0x70
>>>> [<81af7752>] ptregs_execve+0x12/0x20
>>>> [<81af76d4>] ? sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x36
>>>>
>>>> Li Zefan noted that this is due to set_task_comm() dropping the task
>>>> lock before invoking perf_event_comm(), which could in fact result in
>>>> the task being freed up before perf_event_comm() completed tracing in
>>>> the case where one task invokes set_task_comm() on another task -- which
>>>> actually does occur via comm_write(), which can be invoked via /proc.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is not true. The caller should ensure @tsk is valid during
>>> set_task_comm().
>>>
>>> The warning comes from perf_cgroup_from_task(). We can trigger this warning
>>> in some other cases where perf cgroup is used, for example:
>>
>> I must defer to your greater knowledge of this situation. What patch
>> would you propose?
>>
>
> With the following patch, we should see no rcu warning from perf, but as I
> don't know the internel of perf, I guess we have to defer to Peter and
> Stephane. ;)
>
> I have two doubts:
>
> - in perf_cgroup_sched_out/in(), we retrieve the task's cgroup twice in the function
> and it's callee perf_cgroup_switch(), but the task can move to another cgroup between
> two calls, so they might return two different cgroup pointers. Does it matter?
>
We don't retrieve the task cgroup twice. We retrieve the cgroup for
each of the two
tasks: current and prev or next.
I don't understand what you mean by 'between two calls'. Two calls of
which function?
> - in perf_cgroup_switch():
>
> cpuctx->cgrp = perf_cgroup_from_task(task);
>
> but seems the cgroup is not pinned, so cpuctx->cgrp can be invalid in later use.
>
What do you mean by cgroup pinning?
If a task migrates from one cgroup to another, the cgroup code calls
ss->attach_task
which ends up in perf_cgroup_attach_task() if the task is currently
running on a CPU.
If so perf_cgroup_switch() is eventually called and it will update
cpuctx->cgrp. If the
tasks is not running anywhere, then there is nothing to do, state will
be updated when
the task is scheduled back in.
> ---
> diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> index d1a1bee..f5e05ce 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> @@ -302,7 +302,10 @@ static inline void update_cgrp_time_from_event(struct perf_event *event)
> if (!is_cgroup_event(event))
> return;
>
> + rcu_read_lock();
> cgrp = perf_cgroup_from_task(current);
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> /*
> * Do not update time when cgroup is not active
> */
> @@ -325,9 +328,11 @@ perf_cgroup_set_timestamp(struct task_struct *task,
> if (!task || !ctx->nr_cgroups)
> return;
>
> + rcu_read_lock();
> cgrp = perf_cgroup_from_task(task);
> info = this_cpu_ptr(cgrp->info);
> info->timestamp = ctx->timestamp;
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> }
>
> #define PERF_CGROUP_SWOUT 0x1 /* cgroup switch out every event */
> @@ -406,6 +411,8 @@ static inline void perf_cgroup_sched_out(struct task_struct *task,
> struct perf_cgroup *cgrp1;
> struct perf_cgroup *cgrp2 = NULL;
>
> + rcu_read_lock();
> +
> /*
> * we come here when we know perf_cgroup_events > 0
> */
> @@ -418,6 +425,8 @@ static inline void perf_cgroup_sched_out(struct task_struct *task,
> if (next)
> cgrp2 = perf_cgroup_from_task(next);
>
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> /*
> * only schedule out current cgroup events if we know
> * that we are switching to a different cgroup. Otherwise,
> @@ -433,6 +442,8 @@ static inline void perf_cgroup_sched_in(struct task_struct *prev,
> struct perf_cgroup *cgrp1;
> struct perf_cgroup *cgrp2 = NULL;
>
> + rcu_read_lock();
> +
> /*
> * we come here when we know perf_cgroup_events > 0
> */
> @@ -441,6 +452,8 @@ static inline void perf_cgroup_sched_in(struct task_struct *prev,
> /* prev can never be NULL */
> cgrp2 = perf_cgroup_from_task(prev);
>
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> /*
> * only need to schedule in cgroup events if we are changing
> * cgroup during ctxsw. Cgroup events were not scheduled
>
--
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