lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Oct]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
SubjectRE: hit a KASan bug related to Perf during stress test
Date
Thanks a lot, guys.
I will take Peter's patch to do stress test.

-----Original Message-----
From: Oleg Nesterov [mailto:oleg@redhat.com]
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 11:53 PM
To: Peter Zijlstra
Cc: Ni, BaoleX; mingo@redhat.com; acme@kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com; Liu, Chuansheng
Subject: Re: hit a KASan bug related to Perf during stress test

On 10/24, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 10/24, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> > +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> > @@ -1257,7 +1257,14 @@ static u32 perf_event_pid(struct perf_event *event, struct task_struct *p)
> > if (event->parent)
> > event = event->parent;
> >
> > - return task_tgid_nr_ns(p, event->ns);
> > + /*
> > + * It is possible the task already got unhashed, in which case we
> > + * cannot determine the current->group_leader/real_parent.
> > + *
> > + * Also, report -1 to indicate unhashed, so as not to confused with
> > + * 0 for the idle task.
> > + */
> > + return pid_alive(p) ? task_tgid_nr_ns(p, event->ns) : ~0;
> > }
>
> Yes, but this _looks_ racy unless p == current. I mean, pid_alive()
> makes
> task_tgid_nr_ns() safe, but task_tgid_nr_ns() still can return zero
> _if_ it can race with the exiting task.
>
> > static u32 perf_event_tid(struct perf_event *event, struct
> > task_struct *p) @@ -1268,7 +1275,7 @@ static u32 perf_event_tid(struct perf_event *event, struct task_struct *p)
> > if (event->parent)
> > event = event->parent;
> >
> > - return task_pid_nr_ns(p, event->ns);
> > + return pid_alive(p) ? task_pid_nr_ns(p, event->ns) : ~0;
>
> The same.
>
> However. At first glance the only case when p != current is
> copy_process(), right? And in this case the new child can't go away.
> So I think this patch is fine.

Actually there is another case, comm_write() -> perf_event_comm_output(). It checks same_thread_group(current, p), so we can only race with the exiting sub-thread. perf_event_pid() can't return zero, perf_event_tid() can.

And I personally think we do not care and your patch is fine anyway ;)

Oleg.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-10-25 08:56    [W:0.127 / U:11.496 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site