linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/10] perf,x86: Fix event/group validation

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Thu, 21 May 2015 14:56:15 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
Cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
	"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...el.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
	Maria Dimakopoulou <maria.n.dimakopoulou@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] perf,x86: Fix event/group validation

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 05:35:02AM -0700, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 4:17 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> > Commit 43b4578071c0 ("perf/x86: Reduce stack usage of
> > x86_schedule_events()") violated the rule that 'fake' scheduling; as
> > used for event/group validation; should not change the event state.
> >
> > This went mostly un-noticed because repeated calls of
> > x86_pmu::get_event_constraints() would give the same result. And
> > x86_pmu::put_event_constraints() would mostly not do anything.
> >
> > Things could still go wrong esp. for shared_regs, because
> > cpuc->is_fake can return a different constraint and then the
> > put_event_constraint will not match up.
> >
> I don't follow this here. What do you mean by 'match up'?

Ah, I wrote that Changelog for a prior patch; which by writing the
changelog I found faulty.

But I then forgot to update the Changelog.

I was under the impression put_event_constraints() would actually take
the constraint as an argument, and with the below example, it would not
do put on the same it would get.

> > Commit e979121b1b15 ("perf/x86/intel: Implement cross-HT corruption
> > bug workaround") made the situation much worse by actually setting the
> > event->hw.constraint value to NULL, so when validation and actual
> > scheduling interact we get NULL ptr derefs.
> >
> 
> But  x86_schedule_events() does reset the hw.constraint for each invocation:
> 
>            c = x86_pmu.get_event_constraints(cpuc, i, cpuc->event_list[i]);
>            hwc->constraint = c;

Yes, so if you have:

	validate_group()

		hwc->constraint = c;

	<context switch>

		c = hwc->constraint;

The second c might not be the first.
--
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/