From: "Mi, Dapeng" <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>
To: "Belgaumkar, Vinay" <vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Eranian Stephane <eranian@google.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf: Add checks to prevent null ptr access
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2026 09:03:17 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <169f9a48-425d-4e58-b05d-bed05c4c6971@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1d6c8cd5-76e9-421c-9e36-3de7c2816d27@intel.com>
On 9/17/2026 5:48 AM, Belgaumkar, Vinay wrote:
> On 9/15/2026 6:40 PM, Mi, Dapeng wrote:
>> On 9/5/2026 2:16 AM, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:
>>> Sashiko recommended some additional checks to prevent null pointer
>>> access. Check for revoked states inside perf_event_read_local(), as
>>> the pmu event may have already been freed at this point. Add a null
>> Could you please show where perf_event_read_local() could be called after
>> the event is revoked?
> perf_event_read_local() is only available to be called in the kernel
> context. So, BPF helpers can call it. This was the scenario outlined by
> Sashiko:
>
> If CPU A calls perf_event_read_local(), disables interrupts, and locklessly
> checks event->state, it can pass if the event state is
> PERF_EVENT_STATE_INACTIVE.
>
> Concurrently, if CPU B calls perf_pmu_unregister() which leads to
> __pmu_detach_event(), it will not send an IPI to synchronize with CPU A
> since the event is inactive. CPU B then sets event->state to
> PERF_EVENT_STATE_REVOKED and clears event->pmu to NULL.
>
> When CPU A continues and calls __perf_event_read_cpu(event, event->cpu),
> if the event has PERF_EV_CAP_READ_SCOPE, it will dereference
> event->pmu->scope, which was just set to NULL by CPU B, causing a panic.
Ok, better add this into the change log, so the reviewers know why we need
this change. Thanks.
>
> So, I think the scenario is- we have a regular perf session ongoing and
> a parallel session (through BPF) that tries to access the same counter.
>
>> BTW, the prefix should be "perf/core:" instead of "perf:" by following
>> current naming convention.
> Sure.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Vinay.
>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>>> check inside __perf_event_read_cpu() as well before accessing the pmu
>>> ptr.
>>>
>>> Cc: Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Vinay Belgaumkar <vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>> kernel/events/core.c | 12 +++++++++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
>>> index 7777e82aad5e..059f82f0cadd 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/events/core.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
>>> @@ -4788,14 +4788,19 @@ static inline const struct cpumask *perf_scope_cpu_topology_cpumask(unsigned int
>>>
>>> static int __perf_event_read_cpu(struct perf_event *event, int event_cpu)
>>> {
>>> + struct pmu *pmu = READ_ONCE(event->pmu);
>>> int local_cpu = smp_processor_id();
>>> u16 local_pkg, event_pkg;
>>>
>>> if ((unsigned)event_cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
>>> return event_cpu;
>>>
>>> + if (!pmu)
>>> + return -ENODEV;
>>> +
>>> if (event->group_caps & PERF_EV_CAP_READ_SCOPE) {
>>> - const struct cpumask *cpumask = perf_scope_cpu_topology_cpumask(event->pmu->scope, event_cpu);
>>> + const struct cpumask *cpumask = perf_scope_cpu_topology_cpumask(pmu->scope,
>>> + event_cpu);
>>>
>>> if (cpumask && cpumask_test_cpu(local_cpu, cpumask))
>>> return local_cpu;
>>> @@ -4917,6 +4922,11 @@ int perf_event_read_local(struct perf_event *event, u64 *value,
>>> goto out;
>>> }
>>>
>>> + if (READ_ONCE(event->state) <= PERF_EVENT_STATE_REVOKED) {
>>> + ret = -ENODEV;
>>> + goto out;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> /*
>>> * Get the event CPU numbers, and adjust them to local if the event is
>>> * a per-package event that can be read locally
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-17 1:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-04 18:16 [PATCH 1/2] perf: Fix null pointer access in is_include_guest_event() Vinay Belgaumkar
2026-09-04 18:16 ` [PATCH 2/2] perf: Add checks to prevent null ptr access Vinay Belgaumkar
2026-09-16 1:40 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-09-16 21:48 ` Belgaumkar, Vinay
2026-09-17 1:03 ` Mi, Dapeng [this message]
2026-09-07 6:24 ` [PATCH 1/2] perf: Fix null pointer access in is_include_guest_event() Mi, Dapeng
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=169f9a48-425d-4e58-b05d-bed05c4c6971@linux.intel.com \
--to=dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®