linux-kernel - Re: hw_breakpoint: Fix Oops at destroying hw

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]

Date:	Fri, 04 Mar 2016 19:43:34 +1100
From:	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	acme@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com, paulus@...ba.org
Subject: Re: hw_breakpoint: Fix Oops at destroying hw_breakpoint event on
 powerpc

On Thu, 2016-03-03 at 11:20 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 08:23:38PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Wed, 2016-03-02 at 12:59 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> Indeed, but if there's a preemption point in between setting and using
> that state, the ctx->task pointer might not actually still point to the
> same task. With inherited events the event might get swapped to the next
> task if it has the exact same (inherited) event configuration instead of
> reprogramming the hardware.

Yep that sounds like it would be bad for this code.

> > I can't think of a reason why we can't also store it per-cpu, but I could be
> > wrong, I don't know the code well and I haven't thought about it for very long.
>
> Right, so I'm not really up to snuff on the whole hw_breakpoint stuff
> either, that was bolted onto perf by mingo, fweisbec, kprasad and others
> while I was doing PMU bits, and I've never really dug into it.
>
> I understand kprasad is no longer with IBM, his email bounced. That's a
> shame because he knew about this stuff.. :/

I don't know that for sure but I suspect you're right, which is definitely a
shame.

> > Do you mind if I merge the following fix for now as a band-aid, and we'll try
> > and fix it up properly in the next few weeks (but maybe not in time for 4.5
> > final).
>
> OK, that works for me.
>
> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>

Thanks. I've merged it into my fixes branch.

cheers