[ Upstream commit 3172fb9866 ]
There may be concurrency between perf_cgroup_switch and
perf_cgroup_event_disable. Consider the following scenario: after a new
perf cgroup event is created on CPU0, the new event may not trigger
a reprogramming, causing ctx->is_active to be 0. In this case, when CPU1
disables this perf event, it executes __perf_remove_from_context->
list _del_event->perf_cgroup_event_disable on CPU1, which causes a race
with perf_cgroup_switch running on CPU0.
The following describes the details of this concurrency scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
perf_cgroup_switch:
...
# cpuctx->cgrp is not NULL here
if (READ_ONCE(cpuctx->cgrp) == NULL)
return;
perf_remove_from_context:
...
raw_spin_lock_irq(&ctx->lock);
...
# ctx->is_active == 0 because reprogramm is not
# tigger, so CPU1 can do __perf_remove_from_context
# for CPU0
__perf_remove_from_context:
perf_cgroup_event_disable:
...
if (--ctx->nr_cgroups)
...
# this warning will happened because CPU1 changed
# ctx.nr_cgroups to 0.
WARN_ON_ONCE(cpuctx->ctx.nr_cgroups == 0);
[peterz: use guard instead of goto unlock]
Fixes: db4a835601 ("perf/core: Set cgroup in CPU contexts for new cgroup events")
Signed-off-by: Luo Gengkun <luogengkun@huaweicloud.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20250604033924.3914647-3-luogengkun@huaweicloud.com
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
7c631e5cd3