Skip to contentSkip to conversation

Patch "perf/core: Fix concurrent sys_perf_event_open() vs. 'move_group' race" has been added to the 4.9-stable tree

PATCH [email protected] 1 participant 1 message Jan 30, 2017

Subsystems (2)
lore
Share & tools
lore

[email protected]

author maintainer Applied
#0 lore raw

This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled

perf/core: Fix concurrent sys_perf_event_open() vs. 'move_group' race

to the 4.9-stable tree which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary

The filename of the patch is:
perf-core-fix-concurrent-sys_perf_event_open-vs.-move_group-race.patch
and it can be found in the queue-4.9 subdirectory.

If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree, please let <[email protected]> know about it.

Quoted 1 line

From 321027c1fe77f892f4ea07846aeae08cefbbb290 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001

From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 21:09:50 +0100
Subject: perf/core: Fix concurrent sys_perf_event_open() vs. 'move_group' race

From: Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>

commit 321027c1fe77f892f4ea07846aeae08cefbbb290 upstream.

Di Shen reported a race between two concurrent sys_perf_event_open() calls where both try and move the same pre-existing software group into a hardware context.

The problem is exactly that described in commit:

f63a8daa5812 ("perf: Fix event->ctx locking")

... where, while we wait for a ctx->mutex acquisition, the event->ctx relation can have changed under us.

That very same commit failed to recognise sys_perf_event_context() as an external access vector to the events and thereby didn't apply the established locking rules correctly.

So while one sys_perf_event_open() call is stuck waiting on mutex_lock_double(), the other (which owns said locks) moves the group about. So by the time the former sys_perf_event_open() acquires the locks, the context we've acquired is stale (and possibly dead).

Apply the established locking rules as per perf_event_ctx_lock_nested() to the mutex_lock_double() for the 'move_group' case. This obviously means we need to validate state after we acquire the locks.

Reported-by Di Shen (Keen Lab)
Cc Alexander Shishkin <[email protected]>
Cc Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[email protected]>
Cc Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[email protected]>
Cc Jiri Olsa <[email protected]>
Cc Kees Cook <[email protected]>
Cc Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
Cc Min Chong <[email protected]>
Cc Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]>
Cc Stephane Eranian <[email protected]>
Cc Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
Cc Vince Weaver <[email protected]>
Fixes f63a8daa5812 ("perf: Fix event->ctx locking")
---
 kernel/events/core.c |   58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
kernel/events/core.c +54 -4
@@ -9503,6 +9503,37 @@ static int perf_event_set_clock(struct p
 	return 0;
 }
 
+/*
+ * Variation on perf_event_ctx_lock_nested(), except we take two context
+ * mutexes.
+ */
+static struct perf_event_context *
+__perf_event_ctx_lock_double(struct perf_event *group_leader,
+			     struct perf_event_context *ctx)
+{
+	struct perf_event_context *gctx;
+
+again:
+	rcu_read_lock();
+	gctx = READ_ONCE(group_leader->ctx);
+	if (!atomic_inc_not_zero(&gctx->refcount)) {
+		rcu_read_unlock();
+		goto again;
+	}
+	rcu_read_unlock();
+
+	mutex_lock_double(&gctx->mutex, &ctx->mutex);
+
+	if (group_leader->ctx != gctx) {
+		mutex_unlock(&ctx->mutex);
+		mutex_unlock(&gctx->mutex);
+		put_ctx(gctx);
+		goto again;
+	}
+
+	return gctx;
+}
+
 /**
  * sys_perf_event_open - open a performance event, associate it to a task/cpu
  *
@@ -9746,12 +9777,31 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(perf_event_open,
 	}
 
 	if (move_group) {
-		gctx = group_leader->ctx;
-		mutex_lock_double(&gctx->mutex, &ctx->mutex);
+		gctx = __perf_event_ctx_lock_double(group_leader, ctx);
+
 		if (gctx->task == TASK_TOMBSTONE) {
 			err = -ESRCH;
 			goto err_locked;
 		}
+
+		/*
+		 * Check if we raced against another sys_perf_event_open() call
+		 * moving the software group underneath us.
+		 */
+		if (!(group_leader->group_caps & PERF_EV_CAP_SOFTWARE)) {
+			/*
+			 * If someone moved the group out from under us, check
+			 * if this new event wound up on the same ctx, if so
+			 * its the regular !move_group case, otherwise fail.
+			 */
+			if (gctx != ctx) {
+				err = -EINVAL;
+				goto err_locked;
+			} else {
+				perf_event_ctx_unlock(group_leader, gctx);
+				move_group = 0;
+			}
+		}
 	} else {
 		mutex_lock(&ctx->mutex);
 	}
@@ -9853,7 +9903,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(perf_event_open,
 	perf_unpin_context(ctx);
 
 	if (move_group)
-		mutex_unlock(&gctx->mutex);
+		perf_event_ctx_unlock(group_leader, gctx);
 	mutex_unlock(&ctx->mutex);
 
 	if (task) {
@@ -9879,7 +9929,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE5(perf_event_open,
 
 err_locked:
 	if (move_group)
-		mutex_unlock(&gctx->mutex);
+		perf_event_ctx_unlock(group_leader, gctx);
 	mutex_unlock(&ctx->mutex);
 /* err_file: */
 	fput(event_file);

Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from [email protected] are

queue-4.9/perf-core-fix-concurrent-sys_perf_event_open-vs.-move_group-race.patch