[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241107144617.MjCWysud@linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2024 15:46:17 +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 2024-10-30 16:46:22 [+0100], Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> This needs more thoughts. We must make sure that the parent is put _after_
> the child because it's dereferenced on release, for example:
…
> put_event()
> free_event()
> irq_work_sync(&event->pending_irq);
> ====> IRQ or irq_workd
> perf_event_wakeup()
> ring_buffer_wakeup()
> event = event->parent;
> rcu_dereference(event->rb);
>
> And now after this patch it's possible that this happens after
> the parent has been released.
>
> We could put the parent from the child's free_event() but some
> places (inherit_event()) may call free_event() on a child without
> having held a reference to the parent.
>
> Also note that with this patch the task may receive late irrelevant
> signals after the event is removed. It's probably not that bad but
> still... This could be a concern for exec(), is there a missing
> task_work_run() there before flush_signal_handlers()?
So if this causes so much pain, what about taking only one item at a
item? The following passes the test, too:
diff --git a/kernel/task_work.c b/kernel/task_work.c
index c969f1f26be58..fc796ffddfc74 100644
--- a/kernel/task_work.c
+++ b/kernel/task_work.c
@@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ bool task_work_cancel(struct task_struct *task, struct callback_head *cb)
void task_work_run(void)
{
struct task_struct *task = current;
- struct callback_head *work, *head, *next;
+ struct callback_head *work, *head;
for (;;) {
/*
@@ -214,17 +214,7 @@ void task_work_run(void)
* work_exited unless the list is empty.
*/
work = READ_ONCE(task->task_works);
- do {
- head = NULL;
- if (!work) {
- if (task->flags & PF_EXITING)
- head = &work_exited;
- else
- break;
- }
- } while (!try_cmpxchg(&task->task_works, &work, head));
-
- if (!work)
+ if (!work && !(task->flags & PF_EXITING))
break;
/*
* Synchronize with task_work_cancel_match(). It can not remove
@@ -232,13 +222,24 @@ void task_work_run(void)
* But it can remove another entry from the ->next list.
*/
raw_spin_lock_irq(&task->pi_lock);
+ do {
+ head = NULL;
+ if (work) {
+ head = READ_ONCE(work->next);
+ } else {
+ if (task->flags & PF_EXITING)
+ head = &work_exited;
+ else
+ break;
+ }
+ } while (!try_cmpxchg(&task->task_works, &work, head));
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&task->pi_lock);
- do {
- next = work->next;
- work->func(work);
- work = next;
+ if (!work)
+ break;
+ work->func(work);
+
+ if (head)
cond_resched();
- } while (work);
}
}
Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists