linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf_event: Fix incorrect range check on cpu number

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:00:55 +1100
From:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Michael Neuling <mikey@...ling.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf_event: Fix incorrect range check on cpu number

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:31:32AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:

> On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 19:40 +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > It is quite legitimate for CPUs to be numbered sparsely, meaning that
> > it possible for an online CPU to have a number which is greater than
> > the total count of possible CPUs.
> > 
> > Currently find_get_context() has a sanity check on the cpu number
> > where it checks it against num_possible_cpus().  This test can fail
> > for a legitimate cpu number if the cpu_possible_mask is sparsely
> > populated.
> > 
> > This fixes the problem by checking the CPU number against
> > nr_cpumask_bits instead, since that is the appropriate check to ensure
> > that the cpu number is same to pass to cpu_isset() subsequently.
> 
> Cute, do you actually have hardware that does this?

Yeah, Mikey ran across this on a POWER7 box here.

Paul.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/