* [PATCH v6 0/2] perf: Add some null ptr checks
@ 2026-09-02 14:18 Vinay Belgaumkar
2026-09-02 14:18 ` [PATCH v6 1/2] perf: Fix null pointer access in is_include_guest_event() Vinay Belgaumkar
2026-09-02 14:18 ` [PATCH v6 2/2] perf: Add checks to prevent null ptr access Vinay Belgaumkar
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Vinay Belgaumkar @ 2026-09-02 14:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: intel-xe; +Cc: dri-devel, Vinay Belgaumkar, Dapeng Mi
This series fixes a crash seen when the PMU ptr is freed while
there is an open perf connection.
Cc: Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Vinay Belgaumkar <vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>
Vinay Belgaumkar (2):
perf: Fix null pointer access in is_include_guest_event()
perf: Add checks to prevent null ptr access
kernel/events/core.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--
2.38.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v6 1/2] perf: Fix null pointer access in is_include_guest_event()
2026-09-02 14:18 [PATCH v6 0/2] perf: Add some null ptr checks Vinay Belgaumkar
@ 2026-09-02 14:18 ` Vinay Belgaumkar
2026-09-02 14:35 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-02 14:18 ` [PATCH v6 2/2] perf: Add checks to prevent null ptr access Vinay Belgaumkar
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Vinay Belgaumkar @ 2026-09-02 14:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: intel-xe; +Cc: dri-devel, Vinay Belgaumkar, Alexander Kanevskiy, Dapeng Mi
A typical module unload occurring event when there is an active perf
connection leads to freeing of the pmu pointer. The call log is something
like:
..
__pmu_detach_event
pmu_detach_event
pmu_detach_events
perf_pmu_unregister
..
__pmu_detach_event() sets event->pmu to null. When the perf connection
finally is closed, the following stack trace is observed:
Oops: general protection fault, kernel NULL pointer dereference
...
RIP: 0010:_free_event+0x3e/0x370
...
Call Trace:
...
perf_event_release_kernel+0x260/0x2d0
perf_release+0x12/0x20
A call to mediated_pmu_unaccount_event() inside _free_event() is the root
cause of this crash. Adding a check inside is_include_guest_event() ensures
we don't accidentally access a null pmu ptr. In addition to this, we will
now call mediated_pmu_unaccount_event() before clearing the pmu ptr so that
nr_include_guest_events counts are maintained correctly.
v2: Add another check to prevent null access (sashiko)
v3: Use READ_ONCE for checking pmu state (sashiko)
v4: READ_ONCE for the pmu check as well (sashiko)
v5: Improve commit message and split patch into 2 (Dapeng)
Fixes: eff95e170275 ("perf: Add APIs to create/release mediated guest vPMUs")
Cc: Alexander Kanevskiy <alexander.kanevskiy@intel.com>
Cc: Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>
Assisted-by: Claude:Claude-Sonnet-5
Signed-off-by: Vinay Belgaumkar <vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>
---
kernel/events/core.c | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
index 94ca277e0819..f19d27ac411d 100644
--- a/kernel/events/core.c
+++ b/kernel/events/core.c
@@ -6350,6 +6350,9 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(perf_mediated_pmu_mutex);
/* !exclude_guest event of PMU with PERF_PMU_CAP_MEDIATED_VPMU */
static inline bool is_include_guest_event(struct perf_event *event)
{
+ if (!event->pmu)
+ return false;
+
if ((event->pmu->capabilities & PERF_PMU_CAP_MEDIATED_VPMU) &&
!event->attr.exclude_guest)
return true;
@@ -12977,6 +12980,7 @@ static void __pmu_detach_event(struct pmu *pmu, struct perf_event *event,
exclusive_event_destroy(event);
module_put(pmu->module);
+ mediated_pmu_unaccount_event(event);
event->pmu = NULL; /* force fault instead of UAF */
}
--
2.38.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v6 2/2] perf: Add checks to prevent null ptr access
2026-09-02 14:18 [PATCH v6 0/2] perf: Add some null ptr checks Vinay Belgaumkar
2026-09-02 14:18 ` [PATCH v6 1/2] perf: Fix null pointer access in is_include_guest_event() Vinay Belgaumkar
@ 2026-09-02 14:18 ` Vinay Belgaumkar
2026-09-02 14:41 ` sashiko-bot
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Vinay Belgaumkar @ 2026-09-02 14:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: intel-xe; +Cc: dri-devel, Vinay Belgaumkar, Dapeng Mi
Sashiko recommended some additional checks to prevent null pointer
access. Check for revoked states inside perf_event_read_local(), as
the pmu event may have already been freed at this point. Add a null
check inside __perf_event_read_cpu() as well before accessing the pmu
ptr.
Cc: Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Vinay Belgaumkar <vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>
---
kernel/events/core.c | 12 +++++++++++-
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
index f19d27ac411d..bb90034a2054 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);
if (cpumask && cpumask_test_cpu(local_cpu, cpumask))
return local_cpu;
@@ -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;
+ }
+
/*
* Get the event CPU numbers, and adjust them to local if the event is
* a per-package event that can be read locally
--
2.38.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] perf: Fix null pointer access in is_include_guest_event()
2026-09-02 14:18 ` [PATCH v6 1/2] perf: Fix null pointer access in is_include_guest_event() Vinay Belgaumkar
@ 2026-09-02 14:35 ` sashiko-bot
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: sashiko-bot @ 2026-09-02 14:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vinay Belgaumkar; +Cc: dri-devel, intel-xe
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] The commit message claims that `READ_ONCE` was added to `is_include_guest_event()` for checking the `pmu` state, but the code lacks this instruction.
--
commit 7c0504a46d493eec58eae8ca000ce324320508fd
Author: Vinay Belgaumkar <vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>
perf: Fix null pointer access in is_include_guest_event()
This commit addresses a null pointer dereference in is_include_guest_event()
caused by a module unload occurring while a perf connection is active. It adds
a null check for the pmu pointer and calls mediated_pmu_unaccount_event()
before clearing the pointer to maintain the event counts correctly.
> diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> index a6c8e38a31104..7777e82aad5e7 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> @@ -6350,6 +6350,9 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(perf_mediated_pmu_mutex);
> /* !exclude_guest event of PMU with PERF_PMU_CAP_MEDIATED_VPMU */
> static inline bool is_include_guest_event(struct perf_event *event)
> {
> + if (!event->pmu)
> + return false;
> +
> if ((event->pmu->capabilities & PERF_PMU_CAP_MEDIATED_VPMU) &&
[Severity: Medium]
The commit message claims that READ_ONCE was added for checking the pmu state,
but the code lacks this instruction here.
Without READ_ONCE(), the compiler is free to issue two independent memory loads
of event->pmu: one for the null check and one for accessing capabilities.
Could this leave a potential double-read hazard if event->pmu is concurrently
nullified by __pmu_detach_event() while is_include_guest_event() is executing?
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260902141824.733112-1-vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com?part=1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] perf: Add checks to prevent null ptr access
2026-09-02 14:18 ` [PATCH v6 2/2] perf: Add checks to prevent null ptr access Vinay Belgaumkar
@ 2026-09-02 14:41 ` sashiko-bot
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: sashiko-bot @ 2026-09-02 14:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vinay Belgaumkar; +Cc: dri-devel, intel-xe
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
Pre-existing issues:
- [High] The lockless checks for revoked state and NULL PMU pointers are insufficient to prevent a Use-After-Free of the PMU structure or a NULL pointer dereference during concurrent unregistration.
--
commit 4a985bf8ccfd6853c89a279d4b7181e83c33bcef
Author: Vinay Belgaumkar <vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>
perf: Add checks to prevent null ptr access
This commit adds a check for revoked states in perf_event_read_local() and
a null pointer check for the PMU in __perf_event_read_cpu().
> 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;
> +
[Severity: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but does this lockless check provide a false
sense of security against concurrent PMU unregistration? A concurrent
perf_pmu_unregister() can set event->pmu = NULL and free the PMU memory. Since
this check relies on a cached pointer without holding locks that serialize
against unregistration (e.g., ctx->lock), the PMU can be freed immediately
after this check passes.
> 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: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but can this lead to a Use-After-Free when
accessing pmu->scope? If the PMU is unregistered and freed by another CPU
after we cache it but before we dereference it here, pmu->scope will read from
freed memory.
[ ... ]
> @@ -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: High]
This is a pre-existing issue, but is this check vulnerable to a TOCTOU race?
The event state can change immediately after this check if the event context is
inactive or belongs to a different CPU, allowing a concurrent unregistration to
detach the event and free the PMU while perf_event_read_local() continues
executing. This leaves the subsequent call to event->pmu->read(event)
unprotected, potentially resulting in a NULL pointer dereference or
Use-After-Free.
> /*
> * Get the event CPU numbers, and adjust them to local if the event is
> * a per-package event that can be read locally
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260902141824.733112-1-vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com?part=2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-09-02 14:41 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2026-09-02 14:18 [PATCH v6 0/2] perf: Add some null ptr checks Vinay Belgaumkar
2026-09-02 14:18 ` [PATCH v6 1/2] perf: Fix null pointer access in is_include_guest_event() Vinay Belgaumkar
2026-09-02 14:35 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-02 14:18 ` [PATCH v6 2/2] perf: Add checks to prevent null ptr access Vinay Belgaumkar
2026-09-02 14:41 ` sashiko-bot
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox