Re: hit a KASan bug related to Perf during stress test

Oleg Nesterov
2016-10-24T15:40:44Z

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.

Oleg.