From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753226AbdJLAyI (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:54:08 -0400
Received: from LGEAMRELO12.lge.com ([156.147.23.52]:55692 "EHLO
        lgeamrelo12.lge.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753029AbdJLAyA (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:54:00 -0400
X-Original-SENDERIP: 156.147.1.127
X-Original-MAILFROM: namhyung@kernel.org
X-Original-SENDERIP: 10.177.227.17
X-Original-MAILFROM: namhyung@kernel.org
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 09:53:58 +0900
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
To: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, tglx@linutronix.de,
        mhiramat@kernel.org, vedang.patel@intel.com, bigeasy@linutronix.de,
        joel.opensrc@gmail.com, joelaf@google.com,
        mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, baohong.liu@intel.com,
        rajvi.jingar@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@lge.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 21/33] tracing: Add support for 'synthetic' events
Message-ID: <20171012005358.GB9177@sejong>
References: <cover.1506105131.git.tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com>
 <779b69521d09ef0b4228170e9a7c0425f1b1e32d.1506105131.git.tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com>
 <20171004140816.64eaa140@gandalf.local.home>
 <1507146618.14461.21.camel@tzanussi-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1507146618.14461.21.camel@tzanussi-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 02:50:18PM -0500, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-10-04 at 14:08 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:00:01 -0500
> > Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > +/* This function releases synth_event_mutex */
> > > +static int unregister_synth_event(struct synth_event *event)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct trace_event_call *call = &event->call;
> > > +	int ret;
> > > +
> > > +	mutex_unlock(&synth_event_mutex);
> > > +	ret = trace_remove_event_call(call);
> > > +	mutex_lock(&synth_event_mutex);
> > > +
> > > +	return ret;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int remove_synth_event(struct synth_event *event)
> > > +{
> > > +	int ret = unregister_synth_event(event);
> > > +
> > > +	if (!ret)
> > > +		list_del(&event->list);
> > > +
> > > +	return ret;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > 
> > 
> > > +/* This function releases synth_event_mutex */
> > > +static int release_all_synth_events(void)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct synth_event *event, *e;
> > > +	int ret = 0;
> > > +
> > > +	mutex_lock(&synth_event_mutex);
> > > +
> > > +	list_for_each_entry(event, &synth_event_list, list) {
> > > +		if (event->ref) {
> > > +			ret = -EBUSY;
> > > +			goto out;
> > > +		}
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	list_for_each_entry_safe(event, e, &synth_event_list, list) {
> > 
> > remove_synth_event() releases synth_event_mutex, which is racy, as more
> > than one instance can do the deletion.
> > 
> > Perhaps we should remove all the events off the synth_event_list under
> > the lock, release the lock, and then remove the trace events attached
> > to them?
> > 
> 
> Yeah, I think that makes sense, will change..

I suspect a similar race in creation too.  The create_synth_event()
checks existing events in the synth_event_list but it releases the
synth_event_mutex before adding a new event to the list.  So it's
possible to add two (or more) events have same name IMHO.

Thanks,
Namhyung