[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180409114034.GW4082@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 13:40:34 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Cc: Prashant Bhole <bhole_prashant_q7@....ntt.co.jp>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: uprobes/perf: KASAN: use-after-free in uprobe_perf_close
On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 12:40:10PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> But I still think that we should (try to) remove put_task_struct() from put_ctx().
>
> Quite possibly I missed something, but I think it only adds some confusion. Once
> again, even if ctx can't go away you can't use ctx->task without TASK_TOMBSTONE
> check, exactly because this task can exit. So why perf_event_context should add
> another reference?
Ah, I see what you mean. Yes that might be possible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists