lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectQ: sys_perf_event_open() && PF_EXITING
I am puzzled by PF_EXITING check in find_lively_task_by_vpid().

How can it help? The task can call do_exit() right after the check.

And why do we need it? The comment only says "Can't attach events to
a dying task". Maybe it tries protect sys_perf_event_open() against
perf_event_exit_task_context(), but it can't.

c93f7669 "perf_counter: Fix race in attaching counters to tasks and
exiting" says:

There is also a race between perf_counter_exit_task and
find_get_context; this solves the race by moving the get_ctx that
was in perf_counter_alloc into the locked region in find_get_context,
so that once find_get_context has got the context for a task, it
won't get freed even if the task calls perf_counter_exit_task.

OK, the code was changed since that commit, but afaics "it won't be
freed" is still true.

However,

It
doesn't matter if new top-level (non-inherited) counters get attached
to the context after perf_counter_exit_task has detached the context
from the task. They will just stay there and never get scheduled in
until the counters' fds get closed, and then perf_release will remove
them from the context and eventually free the context.

This looks wrong. perf_release() does free_event()->put_ctx(), this pairs
get_ctx() after alloc_perf_context().

But __perf_event_init_context() sets ctx->refcount = 1, and I guess this
reference should be dropped by ctx->task ? If yes, then it is not OK to
attach the event after sys_perf_event_open().

No?


Hmm. jump_label_inc/dec looks obviously racy too. Say, free_event() races
with perf_event_alloc(). There is a window between atomic_xxx() and
jump_label_update(), afaics it is possible to call jump_label_disable()
when perf_task_events/perf_swevent_enabled != 0.

Oleg.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-08 16:05    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site