[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161026161038.GB28832@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 18:10:39 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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 10/26, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 04:41:26PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > So what serialization would close that race? __task_pid_nr_ns() only
> > > seems to use RCU nothing more.
> >
> > I do not see how can we close this race, we obviously do not want to use
> > any locking.
> >
> > That is why I tried to suggest
> >
> > nr = __task_pid_nr_ns(p, type, event->ns);
> > if (!nr && !is_idle_task(p))
> > nr = -1;
> > return nr;
> >
> > but this will report -1 if p runs in another namespace, so perhaps we
> > can do
> >
> > nr = __task_pid_nr_ns(p, type, event->ns);
> > if (!nr && p->exit_state)
> > // it has already called exit_notify
> > nr = -1;
> > return nr;
>
> I think I'm asking how __task_pid_nr_ns() isn't susceptible to this race
> ;-)
which race ? ;) it seems that I confused you. Lets ignore the original
problem with perf_event_pid()->task_tgid_nr_ns() which can access the
freed memory. Lets suppose it is already fixed.
Another problem, as you noted, is that task_tgid_nr_ns/task_pid_nr_ns
returns zero if the task exits and this zero can be confused with the
swapper's pid.
return pid_alive(p) ? task_pid_nr_ns(p, event->ns) : ~0
still can return zero because pid_alive(p) == T is not stable if we can
race with the exiting task, so it can't guarantee that task_pid_nr_ns()
won't return 0.
So we can check ->exit_state or, even better, that same pid_alive() after
task_pid_nr_ns() returns 0.
nr = task_pid_nr_ns(p);
/* avoid -1 if it is idle thread or runs in another ns */
if (!nr && !pid_alive(p))
nr = -1;
return nr;
Or I misunderstood you?
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists