linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] segfault in perf-top -- thread refcnt

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150330125631.GI1413@krava>
Date:	Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:56:31 +0200
From:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc:	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@...il.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] segfault in perf-top -- thread refcnt

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 09:48:52PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi Jiri,
> 
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 01:49:07PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 01:21:08PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 12:22:20PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 10:07:37AM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > SNIP
> > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 2 things:
> > > > > > 1. let run for a long time. go about using the server. do lots of builds,
> > > > > > etc. it takes time
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 2. use a box with a LOT of cpus (1024 in my case)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Make sure ulimit is set to get the core.
> > > > > 
> > > > > reproduced under 24 cpu box with kernel build (make -j25)
> > > > > running on background.. will try to look closer
> > > > > 
> > > > > perf: Segmentation fault
> > > > > -------- backtrace --------
> > > > > ./perf[0x4fd79b]
> > > > > /lib64/libc.so.6(+0x358f0)[0x7f9cbff528f0]
> > > > > ./perf(thread__put+0x5b)[0x4b1a7b]
> > > > > ./perf(hists__delete_entries+0x70)[0x4c8670]
> > > > > ./perf[0x436a88]
> > > > > ./perf[0x4fa73d]
> > > > > ./perf(perf_evlist__tui_browse_hists+0x97)[0x4fc437]
> > > > > ./perf[0x4381d0]
> > > > > /lib64/libpthread.so.0(+0x7ee5)[0x7f9cc1ff2ee5]
> > > > > /lib64/libc.so.6(clone+0x6d)[0x7f9cc0011b8d]
> > > > > [0x0]
> > > > 
> > > > looks like race among __machine__findnew_thread and thread__put
> > > > over the machine->threads rb_tree insert/removal
> > > > 
> > > > is there a reason why thread__put does not erase itself from machine->threads?
> > 
> > that was the reason.. we do this separately.. not in thread__put..
> > is there a reason for this? ;-)
> > 
> > testing attached patch..
> > 
> > jirka
> > 
> > 
> > ---
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/build-id.c b/tools/perf/util/build-id.c
> > index f7fb258..966564a 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/util/build-id.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/build-id.c
> > @@ -60,7 +60,6 @@ static int perf_event__exit_del_thread(struct perf_tool *tool __maybe_unused,
> >  		    event->fork.ppid, event->fork.ptid);
> >  
> >  	if (thread) {
> > -		rb_erase(&thread->rb_node, &machine->threads);
> >  		if (machine->last_match == thread)
> >  			thread__zput(machine->last_match);
> >  		thread__put(thread);
> > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/machine.c b/tools/perf/util/machine.c
> > index e335330..a8443ef 100644
> > --- a/tools/perf/util/machine.c
> > +++ b/tools/perf/util/machine.c
> > @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ int machine__init(struct machine *machine, const char *root_dir, pid_t pid)
> >  	dsos__init(&machine->kernel_dsos);
> >  
> >  	machine->threads = RB_ROOT;
> > +	pthread_mutex_init(&machine->threads_lock, NULL);
> >  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&machine->dead_threads);
> >  	machine->last_match = NULL;
> >  
> > @@ -380,10 +381,13 @@ static struct thread *__machine__findnew_thread(struct machine *machine,
> >  	if (!create)
> >  		return NULL;
> >  
> > -	th = thread__new(pid, tid);
> > +	th = thread__new(machine, pid, tid);
> >  	if (th != NULL) {
> > +
> > +		pthread_mutex_lock(&machine->threads_lock);
> >  		rb_link_node(&th->rb_node, parent, p);
> >  		rb_insert_color(&th->rb_node, &machine->threads);
> > +		pthread_mutex_unlock(&machine->threads_lock);
> 
> I think you also need to protect the rb tree traversal above.

yep, I already have another version.. but it blows on another place ;-)

> 
> But this makes every sample processing grabs and releases the lock so
> might cause high overhead.  It can be a problem if such processing is
> done parallelly like my multi-thread work. :-/

yep.. perhaps instead of more locking we need to find a way where
only single thread do the update on hists/threads

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/