linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [RFC] perf: Fix a race between ring_buffer_detach() and ring_buffer

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: <20140508153727.GD8754@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 8 May 2014 08:37:27 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] perf: Fix a race between ring_buffer_detach() and
 ring_buffer_wakeup()

On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 08:06:21PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 02:35:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >  static void ring_buffer_attach(struct perf_event *event,
> >  			       struct ring_buffer *rb)
> >  {
> > +	struct ring_buffer *old_rb = NULL;
> >  	unsigned long flags;
> >  
> > +	if (event->rb) {
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Should be impossible, we set this when removing
> > +		 * event->rb_entry and wait/clear when adding event->rb_entry.
> > +		 */
> > +		WARN_ON_ONCE(event->rcu_pending);
> >  
> > +		old_rb = event->rb;
> > +		event->rcu_batches = get_state_synchronize_rcu();
> > +		event->rcu_pending = 1;
> >  
> > +		spin_lock_irqsave(&rb->event_lock, flags);
> > +		list_del_rcu(&event->rb_entry);
> > +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rb->event_lock, flags);
> 
> This all works a whole lot better if you make that old_rb->event_lock.
> 
> > +	}
> >  
> > +	if (event->rcu_pending && rb) {
> > +		cond_synchronize_rcu(event->rcu_batches);

There is not a whole lot of code between the get_state_synchronize_rcu()
and the cond_synchronize_rcu(), so I would expect this to do a
synchronize_rcu() almost all the time.  Or am I missing something here?

							Thanx, Paul

> > +		event->rcu_pending = 0;
> > +	}
> >  
> > +	if (rb) {
> > +		spin_lock_irqsave(&rb->event_lock, flags);
> > +		list_add_rcu(&event->rb_entry, &rb->event_list);
> > +		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rb->event_lock, flags);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	rcu_assign_pointer(event->rb, rb);
> > +
> > +	if (old_rb) {
> > +		ring_buffer_put(old_rb);
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Since we detached before setting the new rb, so that we
> > +		 * could attach the new rb, we could have missed a wakeup.
> > +		 * Provide it now.
> > +		 */
> > +		wake_up_all(&event->waitq);
> > +	}
> >  }


--
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/