On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 09:14:39AM +0100, Marco Elver wrote: > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 12:24PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote: > [...] > > diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c > > index b6434697c516..1e4c949bf75f 100644 > > --- a/kernel/events/core.c > > +++ b/kernel/events/core.c > > @@ -6391,6 +6391,17 @@ void perf_event_wakeup(struct perf_event *event) > > } > > } > > > > +static void perf_sigtrap(struct perf_event *event) > > +{ > > + struct kernel_siginfo info; > > + > > I think we need to add something like this here: > > diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c > index 4b82788fbaab..4fcd6b45ce66 100644 > --- a/kernel/events/core.c > +++ b/kernel/events/core.c > @@ -6395,6 +6395,13 @@ static void perf_sigtrap(struct perf_event *event) > { > struct kernel_siginfo info; > > + /* > + * This irq_work can race with an exiting task; bail out if sighand has > + * already been released in release_task(). > + */ > + if (!current->sighand) > + return; > + > clear_siginfo(&info); > info.si_signo = SIGTRAP; > info.si_code = TRAP_PERF; > > Urgh.. I'm not entirely sure that check is correct, but I always forget the rules with signal. It could be we ought to be testing PF_EXISTING instead. But also, I think Jiri Olsa was going to poke around here because all of this is broken on PREEMPT_RT. IIRC the plan was to add yet another stage to the construct. So where today we have: <NMI> irq_work_queue() </NMI> ... <IRQ> perf_pending_event() </IRQ> (and we might already have a problem on some architectures where there can be significant time between these due to not having arch_irq_work_raise(), so ideally we ought to double check current in your case) The idea was, I think to add a task_work(), such that we get: <NMI> irq_work_queue() </NMI> ... <IRQ> perf_pending_event() task_work_add() </IRQ> <ret-to-user> run_task_work() ... kill_fasync();