linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf/core: fix RCU issues with cgroup monitoring mode

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: <CABPqkBTpni3vd_TEJ=rB4taa8dzytzwHuvROnCOnRoTzDGB+pA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 26 Oct 2015 12:27:05 -0700
From:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/core: fix RCU issues with cgroup monitoring mode

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 2:12 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 12:58:47AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > Peter,
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 2:56 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 03:28:11AM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This patch eliminates all known RCU violations detected
> > > > by the RCU  checker (PROVE_RCU). The impact code paths
> > > > were all related to cgroup mode monitoring and involved
> > > > access a task's cgrp.
> > >
> > > But were they right? This patch provides no clues.
> > >
> > I am assuming that is the checker detects something suspicious there is likely
> > a problem.
> >
> > Take for instance:
> >  perf_cgroup_sched_out()->perf_cgroup_from_task() ->task_subsys_state()
> >
> > That one fires the checker. I think because we are accessing the css
> > state without
> > protection.
> >
> > The other places are similar.
>
> But perf_cgroup_attach()->perf_cgroup_switch() takes ctx->lock().
>
> Therefore; if you hold ctx->lock, the cgroup is pinned.
>
Ok, that one was a bad example because yes, it grabs the ctx lock and the
rcu_lock() already.

But the other path:

  __perf_event_task_sched_out() -> perf_cgroup_sched_out() ->
perf_cgroup_switch()
is accessing in perf_cgroup_sched_out() task_subsys_state() without
ctx->lock() or
rcu_read lock. Same thing on the sched_in path.

The one place where we already hold the ctx->lock is
__perf_install_in_context().
Same thing for __perf_event_read() -> update_cgrp_time_from_event().
So yes, we'd need a way to tell this is okay, the cgroup cannot disappear.




>
> And the above sequence very much holds ctx->lock.
>
> Right?
>
> So it looks to me that we should teach perf_cgroup_from_task() about
> ctx->lock or something.
--
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/