From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@maine.edu>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>, "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Hunter <ahh@google.com>,
Maria Dimakopoulou <maria.n.dimakopoulou@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] perf,x86: Fix event/group validation
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 08:49:55 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150522064955.GA26489@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABPqkBSesKybsjBPMh=D8DERQTNEkVzF-vs03Gsk1U7tjbL9fw@mail.gmail.com>
* Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 7:03 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 06:36 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 06:27 -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >> >> Or are you talking about a preemption while executing x86_schedule_events()?
> >> >
> >> > That.
> >> >
> >> > And we can of course cure that by an earlier patch I send; but I find it
> >> > a much simpler rule to just never allow modifying global state for
> >> > validation.
> >>
> >> I can see validation being preempted, but not the context switch code path.
> >> Is that what you are talking about?
> >>
> >> You are saying validate_group() is in the middle of x86_schedule_events()
> >> using fake_cpuc, when it gets preempted. The context switch code when it loads
> >> the new thread's PMU state calls x86_schedule_events() which modifies the
> >> cpuc->event_list[]->hwc. But this is cpuc vs. fake_cpuc again. So yes, the calls
> >> nest but they do not touch the same state.
> >
> > They both touch event->hw->constraint.
> >
> >> And when you eventually come back
> >> to validate_group() you are back to using the fake_cpuc. So I am still not clear
> >> on how the corruption can happen.
> >
> > validate_group()
> > x86_schedule_events()
> > event->hw.constraint = c; # store
> >
> > <context switch>
> > perf_task_event_sched_in()
> > ...
> > x86_schedule_events();
> > event->hw.constraint = c2; # store
> >
> > ...
> >
> > put_event_constraints(event); # assume failure to schedule
> > intel_put_event_constraints()
> > event->hw.constraint = NULL;
> >
> > <context switch end>
> >
> > c = event->hw.constraint; # read -> NULL
> >
> > if (!test_bit(hwc->idx, c->idxmsk)) # <- *BOOM* NULL deref
> >
> >
> > This in particular is possible when the event in question is a cpu-wide
> > event and group-leader, where the validate_group() tries to add an event
> > to the group.
>
> Ok, I think I get it now. It is not related to fake_cpuc vs. cpuc,
> it is related to the fact that the constraint is cached in the event
> struct itself and that one is shared between validate_group() and
> x86_schedule_events() because cpu_hw_event->event_list[] is an array
> of pointers to events and not an array of events.
Btw., comments and the code structure should be greatly enhanced to
make all that very clear and hard to mess up.
A month ago perf became fuzzing-proof, and now that's down the drain
again...
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-22 6:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-21 11:17 [PATCH 00/10] Various x86 pmu scheduling patches Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-21 11:17 ` [PATCH 01/10] perf,x86: Fix event/group validation Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-21 12:35 ` Stephane Eranian
2015-05-21 12:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-21 13:07 ` Stephane Eranian
2015-05-21 13:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-21 13:18 ` Stephane Eranian
2015-05-21 13:20 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-21 13:27 ` Stephane Eranian
2015-05-21 13:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-21 13:36 ` Stephane Eranian
2015-05-21 14:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-21 15:11 ` Stephane Eranian
2015-05-22 6:49 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2015-05-22 9:26 ` Stephane Eranian
2015-05-22 9:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-21 14:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-21 15:42 ` Stephane Eranian
2015-08-21 20:31 ` Sasha Levin
2015-09-10 4:48 ` Sasha Levin
2015-09-10 8:54 ` Stephane Eranian
2015-09-10 10:01 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-21 11:17 ` [PATCH 02/10] perf/x86: Improve HT workaround GP counter constraint Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-22 10:04 ` Stephane Eranian
2015-05-22 11:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-22 11:24 ` Stephane Eranian
2015-05-22 11:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-22 12:35 ` Stephane Eranian
2015-05-22 12:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-22 12:55 ` Stephane Eranian
2015-05-22 12:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-22 13:05 ` Stephane Eranian
2015-05-22 13:07 ` Stephane Eranian
2015-05-22 13:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-22 13:29 ` Stephane Eranian
2015-05-22 13:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-22 13:40 ` Stephane Eranian
2015-05-22 13:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-23 8:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-22 13:25 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-22 13:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-21 11:17 ` [PATCH 03/10] perf/x86: Correct local vs remote sibling state Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-21 13:31 ` Stephane Eranian
2015-05-21 14:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-21 11:17 ` [PATCH 04/10] perf/x86: Use lockdep Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-21 11:17 ` [PATCH 05/10] perf/x86: Simplify dynamic constraint code somewhat Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-21 11:17 ` [PATCH 06/10] perf/x86: Make WARNs consistent Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-21 11:17 ` [PATCH 07/10] perf/x86: Move intel_commit_scheduling() Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-21 11:17 ` [PATCH 08/10] perf/x86: Remove pointless tests Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-21 13:24 ` Stephane Eranian
2015-05-21 11:17 ` [PATCH 09/10] perf/x86: Remove intel_excl_states::init_state Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-21 13:39 ` Stephane Eranian
2015-05-21 14:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-21 11:17 ` [PATCH 10/10] perf,x86: Simplify logic Peter Zijlstra
2015-05-21 11:48 ` [PATCH 00/10] Various x86 pmu scheduling patches Stephane Eranian
2015-05-21 12:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=20150522064955.GA26489@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=ahh@google.com \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=kan.liang@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maria.n.dimakopoulou@gmail.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=vincent.weaver@maine.edu \
/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