[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131109152659.GD26079@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 16:27:01 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: perf/tracepoint: another fuzzer generated lockup
On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 04:13:56PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 03:52:59PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > So, an idea of what may be happening: an event overflows while FASYNC flag is set so it triggers an irq work
> > to send the signal (kill_fasync).
> > After the irq work triggers, it generates an irq_work_exit event, which in turn overflows and,
> > if it has FASYNC, triggers a new irq work. The irq work triggers and generates an irq work exit event which
> > has FASYNC flag, etc...
> >
> > Looks like a nice way to deadlock with an infinite loop of irq work.
>
>
> Yep, exactly, see the email I just send.
In fact, raising an irq work from an irq work should simply be prohibited. That's not a sane
behaviour.
It's natural for async stuffs that have reasonable delays between each pass allow re-enqueuing,
like workqueue or rcu callbacks, or timers. But with irq work that doesn't look right, expect for
lazy irq works though. But lets just not allow it at all :)
--
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