From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Aditya Chillara <quic_achillar@quicinc.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tracing/perf: Prevent double unregister of perf probes
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2025 10:23:29 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250709102329.7a5430fd@batman.local.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250709-fix-double-perf-probe-unregister-v1-1-2b588b3c0140@quicinc.com>
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 11:11:09 +0530
Aditya Chillara <quic_achillar@quicinc.com> wrote:
> Double perf_trace_event_unreg is allowed causing perf_refcount to go
> negative. total_ref_count also goes negative because the return value
> of tracepoint_probe_unregister is ignored.
>
> Once total_ref_count is negative, the next call to perf_trace_event_reg
> will register perf_probe but will not allocate perf_trace_buf and sets
> it to NULL instead.
>
> The subsequent trace_##call() will mem abort in perf_trace_buf_alloc
> because memset will be called on the NULL perf_trace_buf.
>
> Gracefully handle the error in perf_trace_event_unreg to prevent
> double unregister.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aditya Chillara <quic_achillar@quicinc.com>
> ---
> kernel/trace/trace_event_perf.c | 8 ++++++--
> kernel/trace/trace_events.c | 3 +--
> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_event_perf.c b/kernel/trace/trace_event_perf.c
> index 61e3a2620fa3c9417ac23cf5a18aeb86e7393dcc..247db88accd88eb0acf3692ea593d576519ce8b1 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/trace_event_perf.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_event_perf.c
> @@ -154,12 +154,16 @@ static int perf_trace_event_reg(struct trace_event_call *tp_event,
> static void perf_trace_event_unreg(struct perf_event *p_event)
> {
> struct trace_event_call *tp_event = p_event->tp_event;
> - int i;
> + int i, ret;
>
> if (--tp_event->perf_refcount > 0)
> return;
>
> - tp_event->class->reg(tp_event, TRACE_REG_PERF_UNREGISTER, NULL);
> + ret = tp_event->class->reg(tp_event, TRACE_REG_PERF_UNREGISTER, NULL);
The only time unreg() fails is when it doesn't find a tracepoint to
unregister.
There should be no reason to check the return value of unregister if
you have your accounting correct. Thus I think you are fixing a symptom
of a bug elsewhere.
-- Steve
> + if (ret) {
> + ++tp_event->perf_refcount;
> + return;
> + }
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-09 14:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-09 5:41 [PATCH 0/2] tracing/perf: Prevent double unregister of perf and tracepoint probes Aditya Chillara
2025-07-09 5:41 ` [PATCH 1/2] tracing/perf: Prevent double unregister of perf probes Aditya Chillara
2025-07-09 14:23 ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2025-07-09 16:50 ` Aditya Chillara
2025-07-09 17:18 ` Steven Rostedt
2025-07-11 18:40 ` Aditya Chillara
2025-07-18 7:35 ` Aditya Chillara
2025-07-09 5:41 ` [PATCH 2/2] tracing: Prevent double unregister of tracepoint probes Aditya Chillara
2025-07-09 14:40 ` Steven Rostedt
2025-07-09 14:51 ` Steven Rostedt
2025-07-09 14:51 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
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=20250709102329.7a5430fd@batman.local.home \
--to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=quic_achillar@quicinc.com \
/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