[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130705003223.GA4981@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 02:32:23 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
jovi.zhangwei@...wei.com, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] tracing: Atomically get refcounts of event_call
and trace_array
On 07/04, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> Currently ftrace_open_generic_file gets an event_file from
> inode->i_private, and then locks event_mutex and gets refcount.
> However, this can cause a race as below scenario;
>
> CPU0 CPU1
> open(kprobe_events)
> trace_remove_event_call() open(enable)
> lock event_mutex get event_file from inode->i_private
> event_remove() wait for unlock event_mutex
> ...
> free event_file
> unlock event_mutex
> lock event_mutex
> add refcount of event_file->call (*)
>
> So, at (*) point, the event_file is already freed and we
> may access the corrupted object.
Yes, but the same can happen with event_call, so it seems that
this patch is not enough too.
Say, open(id) can take event_mutex when the caller of
trace_remove_event_call() has already freed ftrace_event_call.
Or I missed something...
Perhaps we can rely on d_unlinked() ? IOW, the caller of
__ftrace_event_call_get() should take event_mutex, check
d_unhashed(f_dentry) and only then do _get().
Nasty, I agree.
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists