[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y1X+7FCemionnepj@leoy-huanghe.lan>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2022 10:56:44 +0800
From: Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>
To: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
Cc: Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Anand K Mistry <amistry@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] perf record: Fix event fd races
Hi Ian,
On Sun, Oct 23, 2022 at 06:10:24PM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> The write call may set errno which is problematic if occurring in a
> function also setting errno. Save and restore errno around the write
> call.
>
> done_fd may be used after close, clear it as part of the close and
> check its validity in the signal handler.
>
> Suggested-by: Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
> ---
> tools/perf/builtin-record.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/perf/builtin-record.c b/tools/perf/builtin-record.c
> index 52d254b1530c..e128b855ddde 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/builtin-record.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/builtin-record.c
> @@ -649,7 +649,7 @@ static int record__pushfn(struct mmap *map, void *to, void *bf, size_t size)
> static volatile int signr = -1;
> static volatile int child_finished;
> #ifdef HAVE_EVENTFD_SUPPORT
> -static int done_fd = -1;
> +static volatile int done_fd = -1;
Here is a bit suspecious for adding volatile qualifier. See the
document: process/volatile-considered-harmful.rst.
I know the document is mainly for kernel programming, but seems to me
it's also valid for C programming in userspace.
I not sure what's the purpose for adding volatile for done_fd, if we
really have concern for reading any stale value for done_fd, should we
use WRITE_ONCE/READ_ONCE?
The rest changes look good to me.
Thanks,
Leo
> #endif
>
> static void sig_handler(int sig)
> @@ -661,19 +661,24 @@ static void sig_handler(int sig)
>
> done = 1;
> #ifdef HAVE_EVENTFD_SUPPORT
> -{
> - u64 tmp = 1;
> - /*
> - * It is possible for this signal handler to run after done is checked
> - * in the main loop, but before the perf counter fds are polled. If this
> - * happens, the poll() will continue to wait even though done is set,
> - * and will only break out if either another signal is received, or the
> - * counters are ready for read. To ensure the poll() doesn't sleep when
> - * done is set, use an eventfd (done_fd) to wake up the poll().
> - */
> - if (write(done_fd, &tmp, sizeof(tmp)) < 0)
> - pr_err("failed to signal wakeup fd, error: %m\n");
> -}
> + if (done_fd >= 0) {
> + u64 tmp = 1;
> + int orig_errno = errno;
> +
> + /*
> + * It is possible for this signal handler to run after done is
> + * checked in the main loop, but before the perf counter fds are
> + * polled. If this happens, the poll() will continue to wait
> + * even though done is set, and will only break out if either
> + * another signal is received, or the counters are ready for
> + * read. To ensure the poll() doesn't sleep when done is set,
> + * use an eventfd (done_fd) to wake up the poll().
> + */
> + if (write(done_fd, &tmp, sizeof(tmp)) < 0)
> + pr_err("failed to signal wakeup fd, error: %m\n");
> +
> + errno = orig_errno;
> + }
> #endif // HAVE_EVENTFD_SUPPORT
> }
>
> @@ -2834,8 +2839,12 @@ static int __cmd_record(struct record *rec, int argc, const char **argv)
>
> out_delete_session:
> #ifdef HAVE_EVENTFD_SUPPORT
> - if (done_fd >= 0)
> - close(done_fd);
> + if (done_fd >= 0) {
> + fd = done_fd;
> + done_fd = -1;
> +
> + close(fd);
> + }
> #endif
> zstd_fini(&session->zstd_data);
> perf_session__delete(session);
> --
> 2.38.0.135.g90850a2211-goog
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists