[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180419061710.l6sdq3kvricpyjdu@um.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 09:17:10 +0300
From: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
To: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf/core: fix bad use of igrab in
kernel/event/core.c
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 11:29:07PM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> As Miklos reported and suggested:
>
> This pattern repeats two times in trace_uprobe.c and in
> kernel/events/core.c as well:
>
> ret = kern_path(filename, LOOKUP_FOLLOW, &path);
> if (ret)
> goto fail_address_parse;
>
> inode = igrab(d_inode(path.dentry));
> path_put(&path);
>
> And it's wrong. You can only hold a reference to the inode if you
> have an active ref to the superblock as well (which is normally
> through path.mnt) or holding s_umount.
Oops. I must have snatched it from the uprobe code without thinking.
> This way unmounting the containing filesystem while the tracepoint is
> active will give you the "VFS: Busy inodes after unmount..." message
> and a crash when the inode is finally put.
>
> Solution: store path instead of inode.
>
> This patch fixes the issue in kernel/event/core.c.
>
> NOTE: Based on my understanding, perf_addr_filter only supports intel_pt.
Coresight too, but that's probably even further away from what you have.
> However, my test system doesn't support address filtering (or I made a
> mistake?). Therefore, I have NOT tested this patch.
Check /sys/devices/intel_pt/caps/num_address_ranges, if it's non-zero,
it's supported.
> Could someone please help test it?
Yes:
Reviewed-and-tested-by: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
The subject line needs a little love to be more like other perf commits, but
other than that, looks good.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists