linux-kernel - Re: perf: child events not killed on release paths, survive indefinitely

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: <20140718140343.GC20603@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Fri, 18 Jul 2014 16:03:43 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	"Sahasrabudhe, Sheetal" <sheetals@...cinc.com>,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	jolsa@...hat.com
Subject: Re: perf: child events not killed on release paths, survive
 indefinitely

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 01:32:39PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Sheetal reported a weird issue on arm where events which have been
> closed seem to stay around and compete for HW counters if an application
> has forked between the events being opened and them being closed.
> 
> I've reproduced this in mainline and linux-next and this seems to be a
> generic issue; the below test case fires on my x86-64 workstation as
> well as on arm and arm64.
> 
> The problem is the way we (don't) handle child events when releasing a
> parent in perf_release and perf_event_release_kernel. We call put_event
> on the parent when it is released, but this will exit early having done
> nothing because each child will have incremented the parent refcount
> when initialised from perf_event_init_task. We don't seem to do anything
> about the children in this case.
> 
> Thus the parent event can't be killed until all the children have first
> been killed. As the only places references to them exist are the
> parent's child_list and their respective tasks' hardware
> perf_event_context, they'll only get killed when their respective tasks
> exit (I confirmed this with some printks in hw_perf_event_destroy and
> put_event). Until that happens they remain in their respective contexts
> and continue to compete for HW counters, adversely affecting events
> opened later.
> 
> I'm not sure what the best way of handling this is. We need to clean up
> the children when the last possible user of the event is gone, but it
> looks to me like we'd need to have a separate child_refcount or
> reader_refcount to be able to tell when the events are still useful and
> when the only references which remain are internal.
> 
> Any ideas?

Jiri was recently poking at that:

lkml.kernel.org/r/1405079782-8139-3-git-send-email-jolsa@...nel.org

--
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/