[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YyrC4OyP2BtY8tNl@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 09:53:04 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Duoming Zhou <duoming@....edu.cn>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org,
mark.rutland@....com, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com,
jolsa@...nel.org, namhyung@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org,
hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] perf/x86/rapl: fix deadlock in rapl_pmu_event_stop
* Duoming Zhou <duoming@....edu.cn> wrote:
> There is a deadlock in rapl_pmu_event_stop(), the process is
> shown below:
>
> (thread 1) | (thread 2)
> rapl_pmu_event_stop() | rapl_hrtimer_handle()
> ... | if (!pmu->n_active)
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave() //(1) | ...
> ... |
> hrtimer_cancel() | raw_spin_lock_irqsave() //(2)
> (block forever)
>
> We hold pmu->lock in position (1) and use hrtimer_cancel() to wait
> rapl_hrtimer_handle() to stop, but rapl_hrtimer_handle() also need
> pmu->lock in position (2). As a result, the rapl_pmu_event_stop()
> will be blocked forever.
>
> This patch extracts hrtimer_cancel() from the protection of
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(). As a result, the rapl_hrtimer_handle()
> could obtain the pmu->lock.
>
> Fixes: 65661f96d3b3 ("perf/x86: Add RAPL hrtimer support")
> Signed-off-by: Duoming Zhou <duoming@....edu.cn>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Move hrtimer_cancel() to the end of rapl_pmu_event_stop() function.
>
> arch/x86/events/rapl.c | 7 +++++--
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/rapl.c b/arch/x86/events/rapl.c
> index 77e3a47af5a..7c110092c83 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/rapl.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/rapl.c
> @@ -281,8 +281,6 @@ static void rapl_pmu_event_stop(struct perf_event *event, int mode)
> if (!(hwc->state & PERF_HES_STOPPED)) {
> WARN_ON_ONCE(pmu->n_active <= 0);
> pmu->n_active--;
> - if (pmu->n_active == 0)
> - hrtimer_cancel(&pmu->hrtimer);
>
> list_del(&event->active_entry);
>
> @@ -300,6 +298,11 @@ static void rapl_pmu_event_stop(struct perf_event *event, int mode)
> hwc->state |= PERF_HES_UPTODATE;
> }
>
> + if (!pmu->n_active) {
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pmu->lock, flags);
> + hrtimer_cancel(&pmu->hrtimer);
> + return;
> + }
Looks racy now: AFAICS now it's possible for rapl_hrtimer_handle() to
execute at an arbitrary moment after pmu->lock is dropped - which could be
use-after-free after cleanup_rapl_pmus() executes and the PMU is freed,
right?
There's also the quality-of-implementation issue of the hrtimer executing
in a delayed fashion for the *next* event that may have been added, leading
to possibly unexpected results.
Thanks,
Ingo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists