linux-kernel - RE: hit a KASan bug related to Perf during stress test

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:   Tue, 25 Oct 2016 06:55:15 +0000
From:   "Ni, BaoleX" <baolex.ni@...el.com>
To:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:     "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

Thanks a lot, guys.
I will take Peter's patch to do stress test.

-----Original Message-----
From: Oleg Nesterov [mailto:oleg@...hat.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 11:53 PM
To: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Ni, BaoleX; mingo@...hat.com; acme@...nel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com; Liu, Chuansheng
Subject: Re: hit a KASan bug related to Perf during stress test

On 10/24, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 10/24, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> > @@ -1257,7 +1257,14 @@ static u32 perf_event_pid(struct perf_event *event, struct task_struct *p)
> >  	if (event->parent)
> >  		event = event->parent;
> >
> > -	return task_tgid_nr_ns(p, event->ns);
> > +	/*
> > +	 * It is possible the task already got unhashed, in which case we
> > +	 * cannot determine the current->group_leader/real_parent.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * Also, report -1 to indicate unhashed, so as not to confused with
> > +	 * 0 for the idle task.
> > +	 */
> > +	return pid_alive(p) ? task_tgid_nr_ns(p, event->ns) : ~0;
> >  }
>
> Yes, but this _looks_ racy unless p == current. I mean, pid_alive() 
> makes
> task_tgid_nr_ns() safe, but task_tgid_nr_ns() still can return zero 
> _if_ it can race with the exiting task.
>
> >  static u32 perf_event_tid(struct perf_event *event, struct 
> > task_struct *p) @@ -1268,7 +1275,7 @@ static u32 perf_event_tid(struct perf_event *event, struct task_struct *p)
> >  	if (event->parent)
> >  		event = event->parent;
> >
> > -	return task_pid_nr_ns(p, event->ns);
> > +	return pid_alive(p) ? task_pid_nr_ns(p, event->ns) : ~0;
>
> The same.
>
> However. At first glance the only case when p != current is 
> copy_process(), right? And in this case the new child can't go away. 
> So I think this patch is fine.

Actually there is another case, comm_write() -> perf_event_comm_output(). It checks same_thread_group(current, p), so we can only race with the exiting sub-thread. perf_event_pid() can't return zero, perf_event_tid() can.

And I personally think we do not care and your patch is fine anyway ;)

Oleg.