linux-kernel - Re: perf/tracepoint: another fuzzer generated lockup

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: <20131109153034.GB4971@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Sat, 9 Nov 2013 16:30:34 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
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 04:22:57PM +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > ---
> >  kernel/events/core.c | 14 ++++++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> > index 4dc078d18929..a3ad40f347c4 100644
> > --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> > @@ -5289,6 +5289,16 @@ static void perf_log_throttle(struct perf_event *event, int enable)
> >  	perf_output_end(&handle);
> >  }
> >  
> > +static inline void perf_pending(struct perf_event *event)
> > +{
> > +	if (in_nmi()) {
> > +		irq_work_pending(&event->pending);
> 
> I guess you mean irq_work_queue()?

Uhm yah

> But there are much more reasons that just being in nmi to async
> wakeups, signal sending, etc...  The fact that an event can happen
> anywhere (rq lock acquire or whatever) makes perf events all fragile
> enough to always require irq work for these.

Fair enough :/

> Probably what we need is rather some limit. Maybe we can't seriously
> apply recursion checks here but perhaps the simple fact that we raise
> an irq work from an irq work should trigger an alarm of some sort.

I think irq_work was designed explicitly to allow this -- Oleg had some
usecase for this.

So my initial approach was trying to detect if there was a fasync signal
pending and break out of the loop in that case; but fasync gives me a
bloody headache.

It looks like you cannot even determine the signum you need to test
pending without acquiring locks, let alone find all the tasks it would
raise it against.


--
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/