[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250314125958.GC36322@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 13:59:58 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: kan.liang@...ux.intel.com
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de, bp@...en8.de, acme@...nel.org,
namhyung@...nel.org, irogers@...gle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ak@...ux.intel.com,
eranian@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V9 3/7] perf: attach/detach PMU specific data
On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 05:02:38PM -0700, kan.liang@...ux.intel.com wrote:
> @@ -12551,6 +12813,14 @@ perf_event_alloc(struct perf_event_attr *attr, int cpu,
> if (err)
> return ERR_PTR(err);
>
> + if (event->attach_state & PERF_ATTACH_TASK_DATA) {
> + err = attach_perf_ctx_data(event);
> + if (err) {
> + security_perf_event_free(event);
> + return ERR_PTR(err);
> + }
> + }
> +
> /* symmetric to unaccount_event() in _free_event() */
> account_event(event);
>
This seems weird. We just pushed all the error handling into
__free_event(), and now you're adding one special case back.
Also, you've placed it after security_perf_event_alloc(), which I
_think_ wants to be last.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists