[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z8hmFhg5g7n3JKXP@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2025 15:56:22 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Yi Lai <yi1.lai@...ux.intel.com>,
syzbot+3c4321e10eea460eb606@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf: Fix hang while freeing sigtrap event
Le Wed, Mar 05, 2025 at 09:19:07AM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior a écrit :
> On 2025-03-04 14:54:46 [+0100], Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Perf can hang while freeing a sigtrap event if a related deferred
> > signal hadn't managed to be sent before the file got closed:
> …
> > Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
>
> Reviewed-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
>
> Both of the test cases pass… This looks way simpler than the initial
> attempts, why didn't we go with this initially?
Because I was afraid that a pending perf signal queued before or during
exec may be delivered later to an suid process. But eventually I don't see
anything that prevented from that even before this patch.
Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists