Re: [PATCH 19/19] perf: Make perf_pmu_unregister() useable

From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Thu Jan 16 2025 - 19:03:34 EST


On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 09:54:09AM +0530, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> Sorry for the delay. Was on vacation.

Yeah, me too :-)

> Both of these are incorrect. They just reduce the race window, doesn't
> actually solve the race. Anyway, I could spot few other races:
>
> 1) A race between event creation and perf_pmu_unregister(). Any event
> create code path (perf_event_open(), perf_event_create_kernel_counter()
> and inherit_event()) allocates event with perf_event_alloc() which adds
> an event to the pmu->events list. However, the event is still immature,
> for ex, event->ctx is still NULL. In the mean time, perf_pmu_unregister()
> finds this event and tries to detach it.
>
> perf_event_open() perf_pmu_unregister()
> event = perf_event_alloc() pmu_detach_event(event)
> list_add(&event->pmu_list, &pmu->events); perf_event_ctx_lock(event)
> /* perf_event_ctx_lock_nested(ctx)
> * event->ctx is NULL. ctx = READ_ONCE(event->ctx); /* event->ctx is NULL */
> */ if (!refcount_inc_not_zero(&ctx->refcount)) { /* Crash */
> perf_install_in_context(ctx, event);

Ah, that puts the lie to the guard(srcu) comment there, doesn't it :/

So the intent was for that SRCU section to cover the creation, so that
perf_pmu_unregister() can take out the pmu to avoid creating more
events, then srcu-sync to wait on all in-progress creation and then go
detach everything.

I suppose the simplest thing here is to grow that SRCU section.

> 2) A race with perf_event_release_kernel(). perf_event_release_kernel()
> prepares a separate "free_list" of all children events under ctx->mutex
> and event->child_mutex. However, the "free_list" uses the same
> "event->child_list" for entries. OTOH, perf_pmu_unregister() ultimately
> calls __perf_remove_from_context() with DETACH_CHILD, which checks if
> the event being removed is a child event, and if so, it will try to
> detach the child from parent using list_del_init(&event->child_list);
> i.e. two code path doing list_del on the same list entry.
>
> perf_event_release_kernel() perf_pmu_unregister()
> /* Move children events to free_list */ ...
> list_for_each_entry_safe(child, tmp, &free_list, child_list) { perf_remove_from_context() /* with DETACH_CHILD */
> ... __perf_remove_from_context()
> list_del(&child->child_list); perf_child_detach()
> list_del_init(&event->child_list);

Bah, I had figured it was taken care of, because perf_event_exit_event()
has a similar race. I'll try and figure out what to do there.

> 3) A WARN(), not a race. perf_pmu_unregister() increments event->refcount
> before detaching the event. If perf_pmu_unregister() picks up a child
> event, perf_event_exit_event() called through perf_pmu_unregister()
> will try to free it. Since event->refcount would be 2, free_event()
> will trigger a WARN().
>
> perf_pmu_unregister()
> event = pmu_get_event() /* event->refcount => 2 */
> ...
> perf_event_exit_event()
> if (parent_event) { /* true, because `event` is a child */
> free_event(event);
> if (WARN(atomic_long_cmpxchg(&event->refcount, 1, 0) != 1,
> "unexpected event refcount: %ld; ptr=%p\n",
> atomic_long_read(&event->refcount), event))

I'll make that something like:

if (revoke)
put_event(event);
else
free_event(event);

or so.

> 4) A race with perf_event_set_bpf_prog(). perf_event_set_bpf_prog() might
> be in process of setting event->prog, where as perf_pmu_unregister(),
> which internally calls perf_event_free_bpf_prog(), will clear the
> event->prog pointer.
>
> perf_pmu_unregister() perf_event_set_bpf_prog()
> ... perf_event_set_bpf_handler()
> perf_event_free_bpf_prog() event->prog = prog;
> event->prog = NULL;
>
> I've yet to inspect other code paths, so there might be more races.

Weird, that should be serialized by perf_event_ctx_lock(), both
__pmu_detach_event() and _perf_ioctl() are called under that.

Thanks for going over this!