Re: [PATCH] fork.c: copy_process(): fix cleanup WRT perf_event_free_task()

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 08:07:25PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/26, Sylvain 'ythier' Hitier wrote:
> >
> >     retval = sched_fork(clone_flags, p);
> >     if (retval)
> > //                                      // mustn't perf_event_free_task()
> >         goto bad_fork_cleanup_policy;
> 
> Agreed, this is wrong. Good catch.
> 
> but, unless I missed something,

Ah, indeed. It was meant to be a no-op there, but its before we do that
memset, so its still the inherited values, and we don't want to clean
those up I think.

> >     retval = perf_event_init_task(p);
> >     if (retval)
> > //                                      // mustn't perf_event_free_task()
>                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> this is not right and thus the patch is not right too.

Agreed

> Suppose that perf_event_init_task() -> perf_event_init_context(ctxn => 0)
> succeeds and then perf_event_init_context(ctxn => 1) fails, we need
> perf_event_free_task() to cleanup ->perf_event_ctxp[0].
> 
> So if perf_event_init_task() fails, we still need "goto bad_fork_cleanup_perf".
> 
> No?

Yep

> Or, probably better, we need to change perf_event_init_context() to call
> perf_event_free_task() on failure.
> 
> Or. We can simply move memset(child->perf_event_ctxp, 0, ...) from
> perf_event_init_context() up. This reminds that we really need to cleanup
> copy_process(), in particular I think it asks for the new copy_xxx() helper
> which should do misc simple initializations which can't fail.
> 
> What do you think?

I prefer the former, as the latter scatters the perf specific bits over
more places. Something like so then?



---
Subject: perf: Fix perf bug in fork()

Oleg noticed that a cleanup by Sylvain actually uncovered a bug; by
calling perf_event_free_task() when failing sched_fork() we will not yet
have done the memset() on ->perf_event_ctxp[] and will therefore try and
'free' the inherited contexts, which are still in use by the parent
process. This is bad..

Suggested-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reported-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reported-by: Sylvain 'ythier' Hitier <sylvain.hitier@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
index a232b40..4a0dbb2 100644
--- a/kernel/events/core.c
+++ b/kernel/events/core.c
@@ -8078,8 +8078,10 @@ int perf_event_init_task(struct task_struct *child)
 
 	for_each_task_context_nr(ctxn) {
 		ret = perf_event_init_context(child, ctxn);
-		if (ret)
+		if (ret) {
+			perf_event_free_task(child);
 			return ret;
+		}
 	}
 
 	return 0;
diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
index ad64248..b6cc3f2 100644
--- a/kernel/fork.c
+++ b/kernel/fork.c
@@ -1367,7 +1367,7 @@ static struct task_struct *copy_process(unsigned long clone_flags,
 		goto bad_fork_cleanup_policy;
 	retval = audit_alloc(p);
 	if (retval)
-		goto bad_fork_cleanup_policy;
+		goto bad_fork_cleanup_perf;
 	/* copy all the process information */
 	shm_init_task(p);
 	retval = copy_semundo(clone_flags, p);
@@ -1573,8 +1573,9 @@ bad_fork_cleanup_semundo:
 	exit_sem(p);
 bad_fork_cleanup_audit:
 	audit_free(p);
-bad_fork_cleanup_policy:
+bad_fork_cleanup_perf:
 	perf_event_free_task(p);
+bad_fork_cleanup_policy:
 #ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
 	mpol_put(p->mempolicy);
 bad_fork_cleanup_threadgroup_lock:
--
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/