From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754034Ab3KNPgJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:36:09 -0500 Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com ([209.85.212.180]:37130 "EHLO mail-wi0-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751781Ab3KNPf7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:35:59 -0500 Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:35:56 +0100 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Vince Weaver , Steven Rostedt , LKML , Ingo Molnar , Dave Jones , masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com Subject: Re: perf/tracepoint: another fuzzer generated lockup Message-ID: <20131114153553.GA4399@localhost.localdomain> References: <20131108200244.GB14606@localhost.localdomain> <20131108204839.GD14606@localhost.localdomain> <20131108223657.GF14606@localhost.localdomain> <20131109151014.GN16117@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20131114152304.GC5364@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20131114153301.GD5364@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131114153301.GD5364@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 04:33:01PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 04:23:04PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > /* > > + * We must dis-allow sampling irq_work_exit() because perf event sampling > > + * itself can cause irq_work, which would lead to an infinite loop; > > + * > > + * 1) irq_work_exit happens > > + * 2) generates perf sample > > + * 3) generates irq_work > > + * 4) goto 1 > > + */ > > +TRACE_EVENT_PERF_PERM(irq_work_exit, is_sampling_event(p_event) ? -EPERM : 0); > > And the only reason this doesn't feed fwd itself into oblivion for > irq_work_enter() is because the irq_work_list must not be empty when the > interrupt is raised, and queueing further work does not re-raise the > IPI. Right. > > > Also, we should probably do something 'smart' for kprobes, as all of > irq_work.c and plenty of perf itself is not __kprobe marked so you're > all free to insert kprobes in the middle of perf and then attach perf to > such a thing. > True, ok I'm going to comment about that on your patch.