On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 03:35:42PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 03:22:23PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > > if we dont do it, the event stays installed without owner and > > > > perf fork callback will be called and fail on permission checking > > > > (because of owner == NULL) ... so yes, I think it's needed > > > > > > Oh, right. Alternatively, we don't need permission checking for inherits > > > at all, if we're allowed to create the initial event, we should be good > > > for inherits. > > > > I could adress that in follow up patch.. or you want this instead > > of this one? IMO we should close those events anyway.. > > I tend to agree that closing them all is nicer. But we need to be > careful while doing it so as not to make the clone/fork path block on > it. > > I _think_ it might be best to separate these two issues for the moment, > so cure the reported problem by avoiding the permission check for > inherited events -- IFF you agree with the previous argument that > install_exec_creds() should be sufficient. > > And then so a patch playing games with perf_event_init_context() > (clone/fork) vs perf_event_exit_task() (exit).
ook, will do -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
