Re: [PATCH 01/10] perf,x86: Fix event/group validation

From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Fri May 22 2015 - 02:50:06 EST



* Stephane Eranian <eranian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 7:03 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/