[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+bzNOrMHmfP_cv3Jzaqs0zB3qHY9eu0y4JdKvVw0mgveA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 15:17:34 +0100
From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: perf: use-after-free in perf_release
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 03/06, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>> and this is a failed fork().
>>
>>
>> However, inherited events don't have a filedesc to fput(), and
>> similarly, a task that fails for has never been visible to attach a perf
>> event to because it never hits the pid-hash.
>
> Yes, it is not visible to find_task_by_vpid() until copy_process() does
> attach_pid(PIDTYPE_PID), and copy_process() can't fail after that.
I would what is that that is failed in copy_process. Could it be
perf_event_init_task itself? Maybe it leaves a pointer to p in some
shared state on some error conditions?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists