[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrVRzPwxnHmron_J+6nkBy24cm_G8kX=cxa5+qYoeQLcsw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 14:05:27 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: perf: race with automatic rdpmc() disabling
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 09:44:02AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> static void x86_pmu_event_mapped(struct perf_event *event)
>> {
>> if (!(event->hw.flags & PERF_X86_EVENT_RDPMC_ALLOWED))
>> return;
>>
>> if (atomic_inc_return(¤t->mm->context.perf_rdpmc_allowed) == 1)
>>
>> <-- thread 1 stalls here
>>
>> on_each_cpu_mask(mm_cpumask(current->mm), refresh_pce, NULL, 1);
>> }
>>
>> Suppose you start with perf_rdpmc_allowed == 0. Thread 1 runs
>> x86_pmu_event_mapped and gets preempted (or just runs slowly) where I
>> marked. Then thread 2 runs the whole function, does *not* update CR4,
>> returns to userspace, and GPFs.
>>
>> The big hammer solution is to stick a per-mm mutex around it. Let me
>> ponder whether a smaller hammer is available.
>
> Reminds me a bit of what we ended up with in kernel/jump_label.c:static_key_slow_inc().
>
>
One thing I don't get: isn't mmap_sem held for write the whole time?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists