[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131114153553.GA4399@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:35:56 +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>,
masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com
Subject: Re: perf/tracepoint: another fuzzer generated lockup
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 04:33:01PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 04:23:04PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > /*
> > + * We must dis-allow sampling irq_work_exit() because perf event sampling
> > + * itself can cause irq_work, which would lead to an infinite loop;
> > + *
> > + * 1) irq_work_exit happens
> > + * 2) generates perf sample
> > + * 3) generates irq_work
> > + * 4) goto 1
> > + */
> > +TRACE_EVENT_PERF_PERM(irq_work_exit, is_sampling_event(p_event) ? -EPERM : 0);
>
> And the only reason this doesn't feed fwd itself into oblivion for
> irq_work_enter() is because the irq_work_list must not be empty when the
> interrupt is raised, and queueing further work does not re-raise the
> IPI.
Right.
>
>
> Also, we should probably do something 'smart' for kprobes, as all of
> irq_work.c and plenty of perf itself is not __kprobe marked so you're
> all free to insert kprobes in the middle of perf and then attach perf to
> such a thing.
>
True, ok I'm going to comment about that on your patch.
--
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