linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] perf/core: Fix warning due to unordred pmu_ctx

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4efc66e7-8dd3-49d4-8f5d-1034536e2fcd@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2025 19:38:56 +0800
From: Luo Gengkun <luogengkun@...weicloud.com>
To: peterz@...radead.org
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org, namhyung@...nel.org,
 mark.rutland@....com, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
 irogers@...gle.com, adrian.hunter@...el.com, kan.liang@...ux.intel.com,
 ravi.bangoria@....com, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] perf/core: Fix warning due to unordred pmu_ctx_list


On 2025/1/22 15:33, Luo Gengkun wrote:
> Syskaller triggers a warning due to prev_epc->pmu != next_epc->pmu in
> perf_event_swap_task_ctx_data. vmcore shows that two lists have the same
> perf_event_pmu_context, but not in the same order.
>
> The problem is that the order of pmu_ctx_list for the parent is impacted by
> the time when an event/pmu is added. While the order for a child is
> impacted by the event order in the pinned_groups and flexible_groups. So
> the order of pmu_ctx_list in the parent and child may be different.
>
> To fix this problem, insert the perf_event_pmu_context to proper place
> after iteration of pmu_ctx_list.
>
> The follow testcase can trigger above warning:
>
>   # perf record -e cycles --call-graph lbr -- taskset -c 3 ./a.out &
>   # perf stat -e cpu-clock,cs -p xxx // xxx is the pid of a.out
>
> test.c
>
> void main() {
>          int count = 0;
>          pid_t pid;
>
>          printf("%d running\n", getpid());
>          sleep(30);
>          printf("running\n");
>
>          pid = fork();
>          if (pid == -1) {
>                  printf("fork error\n");
>                  return;
>          }
>          if (pid == 0) {
>                  while (1) {
>                          count++;
>                  }
>          } else {
>                  while (1) {
>                          count++;
>                  }
>          }
> }
>
> The testcase first open a lbr event, so it will alloc task_ctx_data, and
> then open tracepoint and software events, so the parent ctx will have 3
> different perf_event_pmu_contexts. When doing inherit, child ctx will
> insert the perf_event_pmu_context in another order then the warning will
> trigger.
>
> Fixes: bd2756811766 ("perf: Rewrite core context handling")
> Signed-off-by: Luo Gengkun <luogengkun@...weicloud.com>
> Reviewed-by: Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
> 1. update commit message.
> 2. modify annotation style.
> 3. add reviewed by.
> Link to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250121130802.1813928-1-luogengkun@huaweicloud.com/
> Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250120114344.632474-1-luogengkun@huaweicloud.com
>
> ---
>   kernel/events/core.c | 11 +++++++++--
>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> index 065f9188b44a..3f68fbbf3de0 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> @@ -4950,7 +4950,7 @@ static struct perf_event_pmu_context *
>   find_get_pmu_context(struct pmu *pmu, struct perf_event_context *ctx,
>   		     struct perf_event *event)
>   {
> -	struct perf_event_pmu_context *new = NULL, *epc;
> +	struct perf_event_pmu_context *new = NULL, *pos = NULL, *epc;
>   	void *task_ctx_data = NULL;
>   
>   	if (!ctx->task) {
> @@ -5007,12 +5007,19 @@ find_get_pmu_context(struct pmu *pmu, struct perf_event_context *ctx,
>   			atomic_inc(&epc->refcount);
>   			goto found_epc;
>   		}
> +		/* Make sure the pmu_ctx_list is sorted by pmu */
> +		if (!pos && epc->pmu->type > pmu->type)
> +			pos = epc;
>   	}
>   
>   	epc = new;
>   	new = NULL;
>   
> -	list_add(&epc->pmu_ctx_entry, &ctx->pmu_ctx_list);
> +	if (!pos)
> +		list_add_tail(&epc->pmu_ctx_entry, &ctx->pmu_ctx_list);
> +	else
> +		list_add(&epc->pmu_ctx_entry, pos->pmu_ctx_entry.prev);
> +
>   	epc->ctx = ctx;
>   
>   found_epc:

ping.  Does this patch look ready? If so, perhaps we can merge this patch.

Thanks,

Gengkun