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]
Date:	Mon, 14 Jul 2014 15:22:23 +0200
From:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Alexander Yarygin <yarygin@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	Corey Ashford <cjashfor@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] perf: Destroy event's children on task exit

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 03:02:37PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 01:43:59PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 01:18:33PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 01:56:19PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > > From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
> > > > 
> > > > When task exits we close:
> > > >   1) all events that are installed in task
> > > >   2) all events owned by task (via file descriptor)
> > > > 
> > > > But we don't close children events of 2) events. Those children
> > > > events stay until the child task exits and are useless with the
> > > > parent being gone, because we have no way to get to values any
> > > > more.
> > > > 
> > > > Plus if the event stays installed in task even with the owner task
> > > > gone, it runs the perf callback any time the task forks, for no
> > > > real reason.
> > > > 
> > > > Closing all children events events when the owner task of the
> > > > parent event is closed.
> > > 
> > > Do we need this for the other patches, or is this an unrelated change? 
> > 
> > if we dont do it, the event stays installed without owner and
> > perf fork callback will be called and fail on permission checking
> > (because of owner == NULL) ... so yes, I think it's needed
> 
> Oh, right. Alternatively, we don't need permission checking for inherits
> at all, if we're allowed to create the initial event, we should be good
> for inherits.

I could adress that in follow up patch.. or you want this instead
of this one? IMO we should close those events anyway..

jirka
--
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