[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140429085236.GO27561@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 10:52:36 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [perf] more perf_fuzzer memory corruption
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:21:34AM -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
> so it's looking more and more like this issue is with a
> PERF_COUNT_SW_TASK_CLOCK
> event.
But they don't actually use the hlist thing..
> It's being deallocated in a different process than it was started (due to
> fork).
>
> And it really looks like the problem is even though the event is free'd,
> there's still an active hrtimer associated with it somehow.
So this is a different problem from the hlist corruption?
> I can't seem to find *why* there's an associated hrtimer though, as the
> event as far as I can tell was created with sample_period=0 and the
> various
> perf_swevent_init_hrtimer()
> calls seem to guard with is_sampling()
That is indeed, decidedly odd.
> This is made all the more confusing because the PERF_COUNT_SW_TASK_CLOCK
> events are handled by their own PMU even though it's faked up so they look
> like regular software events. Is there a reason for that?
This was the easiest route when we introduced the mulitple pmu thing or
so, its been on the todo list for a cleanup ever since :-/
--
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