[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f86fe9cb-bf4b-1c10-e0da-276fbb3f62ee@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 12:07:54 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu, linux-csky@...r.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
Artem Kashkanov <artem.kashkanov@...el.com>,
Zhu Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@...el.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Vincent Chen <deanbo422@...il.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Greentime Hu <green.hu@...il.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Nick Hu <nickhu@...estech.com>,
Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/16] perf: Ensure perf_guest_cbs aren't reloaded
between !NULL check and deref
On 11/4/21 15:18, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> If I'm interpeting Paolo's suggestion
> correctly, he's pointing out that oustanding stores to the function pointers in
> @cbs need to complete before assigning a non-NULL pointer to perf_guest_cbs,
> otherwise a perf event handler may see a valid pointer with half-baked callbacks.
>
> I think smp_store_release() with a comment would be appropriate, assuming my
> above interpretation is correct.
>
Yes, exactly. It should even be rcu_assign_pointer(), matching the
synchronize_rcu() in patch 1 (and the change can be done in patch 1, too).
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists