linux-kernel - Re: [RFC Patch] perf_event: fix a cgroup switch warning

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAM_iQpX1PTqUqMWfa+LvTPpT85jCJu-LNanyoxM2nCvzPNaCpg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 May 2019 11:06:49 -0700
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch] perf_event: fix a cgroup switch warning

On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 5:32 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 05:27:47PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> > We have been consistently triggering the warning
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(cpuctx->cgrp) in perf_cgroup_switch() for a rather
> > long time, although we still have no clue on how to reproduce it.
> >
> > Looking into the code, it seems the only possibility here is that
> > the process calling perf_event_open() with a cgroup target exits
> > before the process in the target cgroup exits but after it gains
> > CPU to run. This is because we use the atomic counter
> > perf_cgroup_events as an indication of whether cgroup perf event
> > has enabled or not, which is inaccurate, illustrated as below:
> >
> > CPU 0                                 CPU 1
> > // open perf events with a cgroup
> > // target for all CPU's
> > perf_event_open():
> >   account_event_cpu()
> >   // perf_cgroup_events == 1
> >                               // Schedule in a process in the target cgroup
> >                               perf_cgroup_switch()
> > perf_event_release_kernel():
> >   unaccount_event_cpu()
> >   // perf_cgroup_events == 0
> >                               // schedule out
> >                               // but perf_cgroup_sched_out() is skipped
> >                               // cpuctx->cgrp left as non-NULL
>
>                                 which implies we observed:
>                                 'perf_cgroup_events == 0'
>
> >                               // schedule in another process
> >                               perf_cgroup_switch() // WARN triggerred
>
>                                 which implies we observed:
>                                 'perf_cgroup_events == 1'
>
>
> Which is impossible. It _might_ have been possible if the out and in
> happened on different CPUs. But then I'm not sure that is enough to
> trigger the problem.

Good catch, but this just needs one more perf_event_open(),
right? :)


>
> > The proposed fix is kinda ugly,
>
> Yes :-)
>
> > Suggestions? Thoughts?
>
> At perf_event_release time, when it is the last cgroup event, there
> should not be any cgroup events running anymore, so ideally
> perf_cgroup_switch() would not set state.
>
> Furthermore; list_update_cgroup_event() will actually clear cpuctx->cgrp
> on removal of the last cgroup event.

Ah, yes, this probably explains why it is harder to trigger than I expected.


>
> Also; perf_cgroup_switch() will WARN when there are not in fact any
> cgroup events at all. I would expect that WARN to trigger too in your
> scneario. But you're not seeing that?

Not sure if I follow you, but if there is no cgroup event, cgrp_cpuctx_list
should be empty, right?

>From the stack traces I can't tell, what I can tell is that we use cgroup
events in most cases.


>
> I do however note that that check seems racy; we do that without holding
> the ctx_lock.

Hmm? perf_ctx_lock() is taken in perf_cgroup_switch(), so I think locking
is fine.

Thanks.