[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1437008972-9140-222-git-send-email-kamal@canonical.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 18:09:02 -0700
From: Kamal Mostafa <kamal@...onical.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...ts.ubuntu.com
Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
"Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, dave@...olabs.net,
der.herr@...r.at, josh@...htriplett.org, tj@...nel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Kamal Mostafa <kamal@...onical.com>
Subject: [PATCH 3.19.y-ckt 221/251] perf: Fix ring_buffer_attach() RCU sync, again
3.19.8-ckt4 -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
commit 2f993cf093643b98477c421fa2b9a98dcc940323 upstream.
While looking for other users of get_state/cond_sync. I Found
ring_buffer_attach() and it looks obviously buggy?
Don't we need to ensure that we have "synchronize" _between_
list_del() and list_add() ?
IOW. Suppose that ring_buffer_attach() preempts right_after
get_state_synchronize_rcu() and gp completes before spin_lock().
In this case cond_synchronize_rcu() does nothing and we reuse
->rb_entry without waiting for gp in between?
It also moves the ->rcu_pending check under "if (rb)", to make it
more readable imo.
Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>
Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: dave@...olabs.net
Cc: der.herr@...r.at
Cc: josh@...htriplett.org
Cc: tj@...nel.org
Fixes: b69cf53640da ("perf: Fix a race between ring_buffer_detach() and ring_buffer_attach()")
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20150530200425.GA15748@redhat.com
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Kamal Mostafa <kamal@...onical.com>
---
kernel/events/core.c | 14 +++++++-------
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
index 7959624..b59b7b0 100644
--- a/kernel/events/core.c
+++ b/kernel/events/core.c
@@ -4057,20 +4057,20 @@ static void ring_buffer_attach(struct perf_event *event,
WARN_ON_ONCE(event->rcu_pending);
old_rb = event->rb;
- event->rcu_batches = get_state_synchronize_rcu();
- event->rcu_pending = 1;
-
spin_lock_irqsave(&old_rb->event_lock, flags);
list_del_rcu(&event->rb_entry);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&old_rb->event_lock, flags);
- }
- if (event->rcu_pending && rb) {
- cond_synchronize_rcu(event->rcu_batches);
- event->rcu_pending = 0;
+ event->rcu_batches = get_state_synchronize_rcu();
+ event->rcu_pending = 1;
}
if (rb) {
+ if (event->rcu_pending) {
+ cond_synchronize_rcu(event->rcu_batches);
+ event->rcu_pending = 0;
+ }
+
spin_lock_irqsave(&rb->event_lock, flags);
list_add_rcu(&event->rb_entry, &rb->event_list);
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&rb->event_lock, flags);
--
1.9.1
--
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