[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190522110823.GR8945@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 08:08:23 -0300
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@...il.com>
To: Wei Li <liwei391@...wei.com>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, xiezhipeng1@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fix use-after-free in perf_sched__lat
Em Wed, May 22, 2019 at 03:56:10PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 10:36:48PM +0800, Wei Li wrote:
> > After thread is added to machine->threads[i].dead in
> > __machine__remove_thread, the machine->threads[i].dead is freed
> > when calling free(session) in perf_session__delete(). So it get a
> > Segmentation fault when accessing it in thread__put().
> >
> > In this patch, we delay the perf_session__delete until all threads
> > have been deleted.
> >
> > This can be reproduced by following steps:
> > ulimit -c unlimited
> > export MALLOC_MMAP_THRESHOLD_=0
> > perf sched record sleep 10
> > perf sched latency --sort max
> > Segmentation fault (core dumped)
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zhipeng Xie <xiezhipeng1@...wei.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Wei Li <liwei391@...wei.com>
>
> Acked-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
I'll try to analyse this one soon, but my first impression was that we
should just grab reference counts when keeping a pointer to those
threads instead of keeping _all_ threads alive when supposedly we could
trow away unreferenced data structures.
But this is just a first impression from just reading the patch
description, probably I'm missing something.
Thanks for providing instructions on readily triggering the segfault.
- Arnaldo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists