linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] perf: Enqueue SIGTRAP always via task

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]

Message-ID: <20241030140721.pZzb9D-u@linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 15:07:21 +0100
From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
Cc: "Lai, Yi" <yi1.lai@...ux.intel.com>, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org>,
	Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
	Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>, yi1.lai@...el.com,
	syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/6] perf: Enqueue SIGTRAP always via task_work.

On 2024-10-29 18:21:31 [+0100], To Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On 2024-10-28 13:21:39 [+0100], Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Ah the perf_pending_task work is pending but perf_pending_task_sync()
> > fails to cancel there:
> > 
> > 	/*
> > 	 * If the task is queued to the current task's queue, we
> > 	 * obviously can't wait for it to complete. Simply cancel it.
> > 	 */
> > 	if (task_work_cancel(current, head)) {
> > 		event->pending_work = 0;
> > 		local_dec(&event->ctx->nr_no_switch_fast);
> > 		return;
> > 	}
> > 
> > And that's because the work is not anymore on the task work
> > list in task->task_works. Instead it's in the executing list
> > in task_work_run(). It's a blind spot for task_work_cancel()
> > if the current task is already running the task works. And it
> > does since it's running the fput delayed work.
> > 
> > Something like this untested?
> 
> Tested. Not sure if this is a good idea.
> Couldn't we take the ->next pointer and add it to current::task_works
> instead?
> That patch in ZtYyXG4fYbUdoBpk@...ilion.home gets rid of that
> rcuwait_wait_event().

Just tested. That patch from ZtYyXG4fYbUdoBpk@...ilion.home also solves
that problem. Could we take that one instead?
 
Sebastian