[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161024122748.GO3102@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:27:48 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: "Ni, BaoleX" <baolex.ni@...el.com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"acme@...nel.org" <acme@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com"
<alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
"Liu, Chuansheng" <chuansheng.liu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: hit a KASan bug related to Perf during stress test
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 02:21:23PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Should we do the same for perf_event_tid() and report -1 as the pid/tid
> > in the !alive case? -1 should be an obvious invalid pid since we limit
> > the pid-space to less than 32 bits.
>
> task_pid_nr_ns() is always safe, it calls __task_pid_nr_ns(). But yes,
> it can return zero if called after exit_notify() and/or release_task().
>
> And while zero is not a valid pid too, I guess it can be confused with
> the idle thread's "pid" ?
Right, 0 is the idle thread.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists