[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgxe-KAqR_y2jP58GthOYKk0YG=6gNxKHxVUJbG7z2CoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2020 12:48:18 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@...mail.de>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Sargun Dhillon <sargun@...gun.me>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] exec: Transform exec_update_mutex into a rw_semaphore
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 12:30 PM Bernd Edlinger
<bernd.edlinger@...mail.de> wrote:
>>
> > perf_event_open (exec_update_mutex -> ovl_i_mutex)
Side note: this one looks like it should be easy to fix.
Is there any real reason why exec_update_mutex is actually gotten that
early, and held for that long in the perf event code?
I _think_ we could move the ptrace check to be much later, to _just_ before that
* This is the point on no return; we cannot fail hereafter.
point in the perf event install chain..
I don't think it needs to be moved down even that much, I think it
would be sufficient to move it down below the "perf_event_alloc()",
but I didn't check very much.
The fact that create_local_trace_uprobe() can end up going into a
lookup of an OVL filesystem path smells kind of odd to me to begin
with, but I didn't look at the whole thing.
PeterZ, is there something I'm missing?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists