[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160107134008.GZ6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 14:40:08 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, acme@...hat.com,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, jolsa@...hat.com,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, vincent.weaver@...ne.edu,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, acme@...nel.org,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [tip:perf/core] perf: Fix race in perf_event_exec()
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:56:56PM -0500, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:46 PM, tip-bot for Peter Zijlstra
> <tipbot@...or.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > This is because context switches can swap the task_struct::perf_event_ctxp[]
> > pointer around. Therefore you have to either disable preemption when looking
> > at current, or hold ctx->lock.
> >
>
>
> >
> > void perf_event_exec(void)
> > {
> > - struct perf_event_context *ctx;
> > int ctxn;
> >
> > rcu_read_lock();
>
> Do we still need this rcu_read_lock(), if perf_event_enable_on_exec()
> uses local_irq_save( ?
Strictly speaking we should not rely on the fact that RCU grace periods
do not progress with IRQs disabled, so yes.
--
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