From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Vinay Belgaumkar" <vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>
Cc: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] perf: Add checks to prevent null ptr access
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2026 21:41:33 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260901214133.B54321F000E9@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260901211915.127704-3-vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
Pre-existing issues:
- [Critical] The added checks for `event->pmu` and `event->state` are insufficient to prevent Time-of-Check to Time-of-Use (TOCTOU) races during concurrent PMU unregistration, leading to potential NULL pointer dereferences or Use-After-Free.
--
commit af8b37d090911ccca2049c1eddb3328a00155104
Author: Vinay Belgaumkar <vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>
perf: Add checks to prevent null ptr access
This commit adds checks in __perf_event_read_cpu() and perf_event_read_local()
to verify that the PMU pointer is valid and the event state is not revoked
before proceeding. This aims to prevent null pointer access when reading PMU
events.
> diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> index 7777e82aad5e7..059f82f0cadd4 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> @@ -4788,14 +4788,19 @@ static inline const struct cpumask *perf_scope_cpu_topology_cpumask(unsigned int
>
> static int __perf_event_read_cpu(struct perf_event *event, int event_cpu)
> {
> + struct pmu *pmu = READ_ONCE(event->pmu);
> int local_cpu = smp_processor_id();
> u16 local_pkg, event_pkg;
>
> if ((unsigned)event_cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
> return event_cpu;
>
> + if (!pmu)
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> if (event->group_caps & PERF_EV_CAP_READ_SCOPE) {
> - const struct cpumask *cpumask = perf_scope_cpu_topology_cpumask(event->pmu->scope, event_cpu);
> + const struct cpumask *cpumask = perf_scope_cpu_topology_cpumask(pmu->scope,
> + event_cpu);
[Severity: Critical]
This is a pre-existing issue, but does caching the PMU pointer here leave us
vulnerable to a Use-After-Free?
If the PMU driver is concurrently unloaded (e.g., via module unload),
perf_pmu_unregister() executes synchronize_rcu() before detaching events. A
BPF program starting after the RCU sync might still find the event in its map
and race with __pmu_detach_event().
Even though we pass the new !pmu check, if the concurrent unregistration
completes and frees the driver's memory immediately after, accessing
pmu->scope could result in a Use-After-Free.
[ ... ]
> @@ -4917,6 +4922,11 @@ int perf_event_read_local(struct perf_event *event, u64 *value,
> goto out;
> }
>
> + if (READ_ONCE(event->state) <= PERF_EVENT_STATE_REVOKED) {
> + ret = -ENODEV;
> + goto out;
> + }
> +
[Severity: Critical]
This is a pre-existing issue, but does this check completely prevent the NULL
pointer dereference further down in the function?
Later in perf_event_read_local(), there is this call:
if (event_oncpu == smp_processor_id())
event->pmu->read(event);
If a BPF program invokes perf_event_read_local() concurrently with PMU
unregistration, the READ_ONCE(event->state) check might pass. However,
__pmu_detach_event() forcefully sets event->pmu = NULL without waiting for
perf_event_read_local() to finish. This could cause the subsequent
event->pmu->read(event) to dereference a NULL pointer.
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260901211915.127704-1-vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com?part=2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-01 21:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-01 21:19 [PATCH v5 0/2] perf: Add some null ptr checks Vinay Belgaumkar
2026-09-01 21:19 ` [PATCH v5 1/2] perf: Fix null pointer access in is_include_guest_event() Vinay Belgaumkar
2026-09-02 0:54 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-09-01 21:19 ` [PATCH v5 2/2] perf: Add checks to prevent null ptr access Vinay Belgaumkar
2026-09-01 21:41 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-09-02 0:55 ` Mi, Dapeng
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260901214133.B54321F000E9@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox