From: "Chen LinX" <[email protected]>
when do cpu hotplug test and run below perf test together, pmu may access freed perf_event
while true;
do
perf record -a -g -f sleep 10
rm perf.*
done
the scenario is that when cpu offline firstly, the 'perf_cpu_notify' will disable event on the
pmu and remove it from the context list. after cpu online, the perf app may enable the event
that without linked in context list again. when cpu offine the second time, the 'perf_cpu_notify'
can't disable event on the pmu as the event doesn't link to context list. the perf app may free
this event later(the free procedure try to disable event on the pmu but as the cpu is offline,
the 'cpu_function_call(event->cpu, __perf_remove_from_context, event)' is failed). then after
cpu online again, pmu will access freed perf_event and hit panic.
so adding PERF_ATTACH_CONTEXT flag check before enable event to avoid this scenario.
[ 157.666035 ] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at ffffffe89af56004
[ 157.666166 ] IP: [<ffffffff8234218c>] do_raw_spin_lock+0xc/0x130
[ 157.668086 ] Call Trace:
[ 157.668122 ] <IRQ>
[ 157.668156 ] [<ffffffff828a69aa>] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x2a/0x40
[ 157.668268 ] [<ffffffff820168f0>] __intel_shared_reg_get_constraints.isra.9+0x70/0x150
[ 157.668350 ] [<ffffffff8201762e>] intel_get_event_constraints+0x8e/0x150
[ 157.668424 ] [<ffffffff82011191>] x86_schedule_events+0x81/0x200
[ 157.668495 ] [<ffffffff8201767a>] ? intel_get_event_constraints+0xda/0x150
[ 157.668568 ] [<ffffffff82011191>] ? x86_schedule_events+0x81/0x200
[ 157.668640 ] [<ffffffff82028848>] ? flat_send_IPI_mask+0x88/0xa0
[ 157.668710 ] [<ffffffff820e5628>] ? __enqueue_entity+0x78/0x80
[ 157.668777 ] [<ffffffff820e818a>] ? enqueue_task_fair+0x90a/0xdd0
[ 157.668848 ] [<ffffffff82145585>] ? tracer_tracing_is_on+0x15/0x30
[ 157.668918 ] [<ffffffff820f3b91>] ? cpuacct_charge+0x61/0x70
[ 157.668984 ] [<ffffffff82028848>] ? flat_send_IPI_mask+0x88/0xa0
[ 157.669052 ] [<ffffffff820233c5>] ? native_smp_send_reschedule+0x45/0x60
[ 157.669126 ] [<ffffffff820df199>] ? resched_task+0x69/0x70
[ 157.669192 ] [<ffffffff82145585>] ? tracer_tracing_is_on+0x15/0x30
[ 157.669262 ] [<ffffffff82161c13>] ? perf_pmu_enable+0x13/0x30
[ 157.669328 ] [<ffffffff820102ef>] ? x86_pmu_add+0xaf/0x150
[ 157.669393 ] [<ffffffff8200ffc0>] x86_pmu_commit_txn+0x50/0xa0
[ 157.669462 ] [<ffffffff82008cf4>] ? native_sched_clock+0x24/0x80
[ 157.669531 ] [<ffffffff82008cf4>] ? native_sched_clock+0x24/0x80
[ 157.669598 ] [<ffffffff820e441d>] ? sched_clock_cpu+0xbd/0x110
[ 157.669664 ] [<ffffffff820e44af>] ? local_clock+0x3f/0x50
[ 157.669729 ] [<ffffffff82161fe4>] ? perf_event_update_userpage+0xe4/0x150
[ 157.669802 ] [<ffffffff82162721>] ? event_sched_in.isra.72+0x81/0x190
[ 157.669871 ] [<ffffffff821629ca>] group_sched_in+0x19a/0x1e0
[ 157.669937 ] [<ffffffff82008cf4>] ? native_sched_clock+0x24/0x80
[ 157.670006 ] [<ffffffff82162bc8>] ctx_sched_in+0x1b8/0x1e0
[ 157.670071 ] [<ffffffff821630c2>] perf_event_sched_in+0x22/0x80
[ 157.670138 ] [<ffffffff8216321f>] __perf_install_in_context+0xff/0x170
[ 157.670212 ] [<ffffffff8215e8ab>] remote_function+0x4b/0x60
[ 157.670282 ] [<ffffffff821086bd>] generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt+0x9d/0x120
[ 157.670363 ] [<ffffffff82339e79>] ? __const_udelay+0x29/0x30
[ 157.670429 ] [<ffffffff820236b7>] smp_call_function_single_interrupt+0x27/0x40
[ 157.670504 ] [<ffffffff828ad96f>] call_function_single_interrupt+0x6f/0x80
Change-Id: I7265d83159b9180e9be3a370ba50e067385547bd
Signed-off-by: Yanmin Zhang <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Chen LinX <[email protected]>
---
kernel/events/core.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
index e76e495..30f0095 100644
--- a/kernel/events/core.c
+++ b/kernel/events/core.c
@@ -1783,7 +1783,7 @@ static int __perf_event_enable(void *info)
* where the task could be killed and 'ctx' deactivated
* by perf_event_exit_task.
*/
- if (!ctx->is_active)
+ if (!ctx->is_active || !(event->attach_state & PERF_ATTACH_CONTEXT))
return -EINVAL;
raw_spin_lock(&ctx->lock);
--
1.7.9.5
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 11:36:38AM +0800, Chen LinX wrote:
> From: "Chen LinX" <[email protected]>
>
> when do cpu hotplug test and run below perf test together, pmu may access freed perf_event
>
> while true;
> do
> perf record -a -g -f sleep 10
> rm perf.*
> done
>
> the scenario is that when cpu offline firstly, the 'perf_cpu_notify' will disable event on the
> pmu and remove it from the context list. after cpu online, the perf app may enable the event
> that without linked in context list again. when cpu offine the second time, the 'perf_cpu_notify'
> can't disable event on the pmu as the event doesn't link to context list. the perf app may free
> this event later(the free procedure try to disable event on the pmu but as the cpu is offline,
> the 'cpu_function_call(event->cpu, __perf_remove_from_context, event)' is failed). then after
> cpu online again, pmu will access freed perf_event and hit panic.
What?
(also, teach your MUA to wrap text at 78 chars)
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 11:36:38AM +0800, Chen LinX wrote:
> From: "Chen LinX" <[email protected]>
>
> when do cpu hotplug test and run below perf test together, pmu may access freed perf_event
>
> while true;
> do
> perf record -a -g -f sleep 10
> rm perf.*
> done
>
> the scenario is that when cpu offline firstly, the 'perf_cpu_notify' will disable event on the
> pmu and remove it from the context list. after cpu online, the perf app may enable the event
But it does not, right?
> that without linked in context list again. when cpu offine the second time, the 'perf_cpu_notify'
> can't disable event on the pmu as the event doesn't link to context list. the perf app may free
> this event later(the free procedure try to disable event on the pmu but as the cpu is offline,
> the 'cpu_function_call(event->cpu, __perf_remove_from_context, event)' is failed)
Failed how, below is __perf_install_in_context.
> . then after
> cpu online again, pmu will access freed perf_event and hit panic.
>
> so adding PERF_ATTACH_CONTEXT flag check before enable event to avoid this scenario.
In fact it does not. If you look at perf_event_enable() there's a code
path that doesn't call __perf_event_enable().
> [ 157.670138 ] [<ffffffff8216321f>] __perf_install_in_context+0xff/0x170
And yet, __perf_install_in_context isn't mentioned at all in the above.
> Change-Id: I7265d83159b9180e9be3a370ba50e067385547bd
> Signed-off-by: Yanmin Zhang <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Chen LinX <[email protected]>
Wrong SoB-chain, Yanmin didn't author this patch did he, seeing how From
is you. And Yanmin didn't actually send me this patch either.
On 2014/7/14 21:27, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 11:36:38AM +0800, Chen LinX wrote:
>> From: "Chen LinX" <[email protected]>
>>
>> when do cpu hotplug test and run below perf test together, pmu may access freed perf_event
>>
>> while true;
>> do
>> perf record -a -g -f sleep 10
>> rm perf.*
>> done
>>
>> the scenario is that when cpu offline firstly, the 'perf_cpu_notify' will disable event on the
>> pmu and remove it from the context list. after cpu online, the perf app may enable the event
> But it does not, right?
Thanks for your kind comments.
It does, actually.
The major reason is application calls many syscall to start perf.
1) perf_event_open => perf_install_in_context;
2) perf_ioctl => perf_event_enable.
After step 1), the cpu might be hot unplugged, and the event is removed from
the cpu context.
Then, the cpu is hog plugged back. The app runs at step 2) to enable the
event on that cpu.
Then, the cpu is hot unplugged again. As the event is not linked to
the cpu's context, perf_cpu_notify can't disable the events. Mostly, the
event is linked in cpuc->event_list[XXX]. At that time, applcation
might free the event.
When the cpu is plugged back, it might use the freed event and cause kernel
panic.
>
>> that without linked in context list again. when cpu offine the second time, the 'perf_cpu_notify'
>> can't disable event on the pmu as the event doesn't link to context list. the perf app may free
>> this event later(the free procedure try to disable event on the pmu but as the cpu is offline,
>> the 'cpu_function_call(event->cpu, __perf_remove_from_context, event)' is failed)
> Failed how, below is __perf_install_in_context.
>
>> . then after
>> cpu online again, pmu will access freed perf_event and hit panic.
>>
>> so adding PERF_ATTACH_CONTEXT flag check before enable event to avoid this scenario.
> In fact it does not. If you look at perf_event_enable() there's a code
> path that doesn't call __perf_event_enable().
Here we hit it with a per-cpu event instead of task event.
>
>> [ 157.670138 ] [<ffffffff8216321f>] __perf_install_in_context+0xff/0x170
> And yet, __perf_install_in_context isn't mentioned at all in the above.
>
>> Change-Id: I7265d83159b9180e9be3a370ba50e067385547bd
>> Signed-off-by: Yanmin Zhang <[email protected]>
>> Signed-off-by: Chen LinX <[email protected]>
> Wrong SoB-chain, Yanmin didn't author this patch did he, seeing how From
> is you. And Yanmin didn't actually send me this patch either.
Lin works with me in the same team. He is smart, but new in kernel upstream
community. I debugged with him and he caught the root cause ahead of me.
The patch is good. Lin is running more testing with the latest kernel
3.16.0-rc5 now.
Thanks,
Yanmin
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 04:56:58PM +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
>
> On 2014/7/14 21:27, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 11:36:38AM +0800, Chen LinX wrote:
> >>From: "Chen LinX" <[email protected]>
> >>
> >>when do cpu hotplug test and run below perf test together, pmu may access freed perf_event
> >>
> >>while true;
> >>do
> >>perf record -a -g -f sleep 10
> >>rm perf.*
> >>done
> >>
> >>the scenario is that when cpu offline firstly, the 'perf_cpu_notify' will disable event on the
> >>pmu and remove it from the context list. after cpu online, the perf app may enable the event
> >But it does not, right?
>
> Thanks for your kind comments.
> It does, actually.
> The major reason is application calls many syscall to start perf.
> 1) perf_event_open => perf_install_in_context;
> 2) perf_ioctl => perf_event_enable.
That still does not compute; but you're right, it does call
perf_evlist__enable() which ends up calling IOC_ENABLE when there is no
target (ie. things like perf -a), because we created things with
.enable_on_exec=1.
Similar for ->initial_delay cruft.
> >>Signed-off-by: Yanmin Zhang <[email protected]>
> >>Signed-off-by: Chen LinX <[email protected]>
> >Wrong SoB-chain, Yanmin didn't author this patch did he, seeing how From
> >is you. And Yanmin didn't actually send me this patch either.
>
> Lin works with me in the same team. He is smart, but new in kernel upstream
>
> community. I debugged with him and he caught the root cause ahead of me.
Well, then add a Reviewed-by from you or so, the double sob doesn't make
sense.
> The patch is good.
No its not, its got an incomprehensible changelog, and its not at all
clear why the perf_event_enable() path that doesn't use
__perf_event_enable() is correct.