Re: [PATCH] s390/pai: Handle multiple PMU stop callback invocations

Thomas Richter <[email protected]>
Newsgroups dev.linux.lists.sashiko-reviews,org.kernel.vger.linux-s390
Organization IBM
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On 8/13/26 09:21, [email protected] wrote:
> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
> 
> Pre-existing issues:
> - [High] Unsafe iteration over `cpump->syswide_list` in `pai_have_samples()` leads to a kernel crash (LIST_POISON dereference) if an event overflows and is synchronously throttled during the loop.

This can not happen. The syswide_list is anchored by per-CPU pai_map::syswide_list and tracks
all events which are bound to that particular CPU. The event was installed only on that particular
CPU and does not move with the process/task. Each CPU has its own list anchored by
pai_map::syswide_list.

The call chains are either

 paicrypt_sched_task() or paiext_sched_task
 +--> pai_have_samples() iterates over syswide_list and calls
      +--> pai_have_sample
      
or    
 pai_stop()
 +--> list_del() to remove the event from that CPU.

 Since a CPU can only execute one given code path at any one time:
 - either schedule out
 - or stop the event
 both can not happen at the same time. PAI PMU does not install an interrupt handler,
 there is no supoprt for interrupts.

 I think this is safe.


> --
> 
> --- Patch [1]: [PATCH] s390/pai: Handle multiple PMU stop callback invocations ---
> commit 8c88016c23029bda1d214155e79ad2671b8e3eb5
> Author: Thomas Richter <[email protected]>
> 
> s390/pai: Handle multiple PMU stop callback invocations
> 
> The kernel protects itself against high sampling load by throttling it via
> perf_event_throttle(), calling PMU->stop(). Shortly after, the task may be
> scheduled out, resulting in a second PMU->stop() invocation. This patch adds
> a check for the PERF_HES_STOPPED bit to prevent duplicate handling.
> 
> Cc: [email protected] # v6.19+
> Fixes: ac03223f0723 ("s390/pai_crypto: Add common pai_stop() function")
> 
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kernel/perf_pai.c b/arch/s390/kernel/perf_pai.c
>> index cdb8006220ca0..a377f04296563 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/kernel/perf_pai.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/kernel/perf_pai.c
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
>> @@ -510,6 +511,13 @@ static void pai_stop(struct perf_event *event, int flags)
>>  	struct pai_mapptr *mp = this_cpu_ptr(pai_root[idx].mapptr);
>>  	struct pai_map *cpump = mp->mapptr;
>>  
>> +	/* Cope with multiple invocations:
>> +	 *   1. perf_event_throttle() --> PMU->stop()
>> +	 *   2. task schedules out --> PMU->stop()
>> +	 * Check for event already stopped.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (event->hw.state & PERF_HES_STOPPED)
>> +		return;
> 
> [Severity: High]
> This is a pre-existing issue, but can this synchronous throttle event
> corrupt the list iteration during sample processing?
> 
> Looking at the iteration in pai_have_samples():
> 
> arch/s390/kernel/perf_pai.c:pai_have_samples() {
>     ...
>     list_for_each_entry(event, &cpump->syswide_list, hw.tp_list)
>         pai_have_sample(event, cpump);
>     ...
> }
> 
> If an event reaches its sample limit, perf_event_overflow() triggers
> synchronously, invoking perf_event_throttle() which then calls pai_stop().
> 
> When pai_stop() is called for a system-wide sampling event, it executes:
> 
>     list_del(PAI_SWLIST(event));
> 
> Will deleting the event currently being iterated leave the list pointer
> at a poison value, causing a panic when the loop in pai_have_samples()
> continues? Does pai_have_samples() need to use list_for_each_entry_safe()
> instead?
> 
>>  	if (!event->attr.sample_period) {	/* Counting */
>>  		pai_pmu[idx].pmu->read(event);
>>  	} else {				/* Sampling */
> 


-- 
Thomas Richter, Dept 3303, IBM s390 Linux Development, Boeblingen, Germany
--
IBM Deutschland Research & Development GmbH

Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Wolfgang Wendt

Geschäftsführung: David Faller

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen / Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.