[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190528140103.GT2623@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 16:01:03 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Young Xiao <92siuyang@...il.com>
Cc: will.deacon@....com, linux@...linux.org.uk, mark.rutland@....com,
mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
kan.liang@...ux.intel.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ravi.bangoria@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
mpe@...erman.id.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: Fix oops when kthread execs user process
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 08:31:29PM +0800, Young Xiao wrote:
> When a kthread calls call_usermodehelper() the steps are:
> 1. allocate current->mm
> 2. load_elf_binary()
> 3. populate current->thread.regs
>
> While doing this, interrupts are not disabled. If there is a perf
> interrupt in the middle of this process (i.e. step 1 has completed
> but not yet reached to step 3) and if perf tries to read userspace
> regs, kernel oops.
>
> Fix it by setting abi to PERF_SAMPLE_REGS_ABI_NONE when userspace
> pt_regs are not set.
>
> See commit bf05fc25f268 ("powerpc/perf: Fix oops when kthread execs
> user process") for details.
Why the hell do we set current->mm before it is complete? Note that
normally exec() builds the new mm before attaching it, see exec_mmap()
in flush_old_exec().
Also, why did those PPC folks 'fix' this in isolation? And why didn't
you Cc them?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists