[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140714133542.GZ9918@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 15:35:42 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
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 03:22:23PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > 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..
I tend to agree that closing them all is nicer. But we need to be
careful while doing it so as not to make the clone/fork path block on
it.
I _think_ it might be best to separate these two issues for the moment,
so cure the reported problem by avoiding the permission check for
inherited events -- IFF you agree with the previous argument that
install_exec_creds() should be sufficient.
And then so a patch playing games with perf_event_init_context()
(clone/fork) vs perf_event_exit_task() (exit).
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists