linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 13/13] perf tools: add feature header record to pipe-mode

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 6 Jun 2017 11:13:42 -0700
From:   David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@...gle.com>
To:     Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Simon Que <sque@...omium.org>,
        Wang Nan <wangnan0@...wei.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
        He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        David Ahern <dsa@...ulusnetworks.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/13] perf tools: add feature header record to pipe-mode

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 4:04 AM, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 05, 2017 at 06:32:50PM -0700, David Carrillo-Cisneros wrote:
>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 1:10 AM, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:48:53AM -0700, David Carrillo-Cisneros wrote:
>> >
>> > SNIP
>> >
>> >> +int perf_event__synthesize_features(struct perf_tool *tool,
>> >> +                                 struct perf_session *session,
>> >> +                                 struct perf_evlist *evlist,
>> >> +                                 perf_event__handler_t process)
>> >> +{
>> >> +     struct perf_header *header = &session->header;
>> >> +     struct feat_fd fdd;
>> >> +     struct feature_event *fe;
>> >> +     size_t sz, sz_hdr;
>> >> +     int feat, ret;
>> >> +
>> >> +     sz_hdr = sizeof(fe->header);
>> >> +     sz = sizeof(union perf_event);
>> >> +     /* get a nice alignment */
>> >> +     sz = PERF_ALIGN(sz, getpagesize());
>> >> +
>> >> +     memset(&fdd, 0, sizeof(fdd));
>> >> +
>> >> +     fdd.buf = malloc(sz);
>> >> +     if (!fdd.buf)
>> >> +             return -ENOMEM;
>> >> +
>> >> +     fdd.size = sz - sz_hdr;
>> >> +
>> >> +     for_each_set_bit(feat, header->adds_features, HEADER_FEAT_BITS) {
>> >> +             if (!feat_ops[feat].has_record) {
>> >> +                     pr_debug("No record header feature for header :%d\n", feat);
>> >> +                     continue;
>> >> +             }
>> >> +
>> >> +             fdd.offset = sizeof(*fe);
>> >> +
>> >> +             ret = feat_ops[feat].write(&fdd, evlist);
>> >> +             if (ret || fdd.offset <= (ssize_t)sizeof(*fe)) {
>> >> +                     pr_debug("Error writing feature\n");
>> >> +                     continue;
>> >> +             }
>> >> +
>> >> +             /* fdd.buf may have changed due to realloc in do_write() */
>> >
>> > right, so how's ensured the data never cross the maximum event size (0xffff) ?
>> >
>> > I think do_write should have some check on that
>>
>> do_write reallocates ff->buff when it's not large enough.
>
> and what if it's bigger than 0xffff?
>
Oh yeah, I'll add that check.