linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 06/11] perf: Add support for SIGTRAP on perf events

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

Date:   Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:32:58 +0200
From:   Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        Matt Morehouse <mascasa@...gle.com>,
        Peter Collingbourne <pcc@...gle.com>,
        Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/11] perf: Add support for SIGTRAP on perf events

On Mon, 29 Mar 2021 at 14:07, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:

> (and we might already have a problem on some architectures where there
> can be significant time between these due to not having
> arch_irq_work_raise(), so ideally we ought to double check current in
> your case)

I missed this bit -- just to verify: here we want to check that
event->ctx->task == current, in case the the irq_work runs when the
current task has already been replaced. Correct?

Thanks,
-- Marco