[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190529161955.GZ2623@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 18:19:55 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: Young Xiao <92siuyang@...il.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,
acme@...hat.com, eranian@...gle.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
jolsa@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: Fix oops when kthread execs user process
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 03:35:10PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 03:25:15PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 02:05:21PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 02:55:57PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > > > if (user_mode(regs)) {
> > >
> > > Hmm, so it just occurred to me that Mark's observation is that the regs
> > > can be junk in some cases. In which case, should we be checking for
> > > kthreads first?
> >
> > task_pt_regs() can return garbage, but @regs is the exception (or
> > perf_arch_fetch_caller_regs()) regs, and for those user_mode() had
> > better be correct.
>
> So what should we report for the idle task?
If an interrupt hits the idle task, @regs would be !user_mode(regs),
we'll find current->flags & PF_KTHREAD (idle not having passed through
exec()) and therefore we'll take ABI_NONE for the user regs.
Or am I not getting it?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists