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  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, 7 Oct 2014 11:00:50 -0300
From:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
To:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc:	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jolsa@...hat.com,
	peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...e.hu, dsahern@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf tools: fix off-by-one error in maps

Em Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 02:47:19PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu:
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2014 10:35:32 +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > This patch fixes off-by-one errors in the management of maps.
> > A map is defined by start address and length as implemented by map__new():

> > map__init(map, type, start, start + len, pgoff, dso);

> > map->start = addr;
> > map->end = end;

> > Consequently, the actual address range is ]start; end[
> > map->end is the first byte outside the range. This patch
> > fixes two bugs where upper bound checking was off-by-one.

> > In V2, we fix map_groups__fixup_overlappings() some more
> > where map->start was off-by-one as reported by Jiri.
 
> It seems we also need to fix maps__find():
 
> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/map.c b/tools/perf/util/map.c
> index b7090596ac50..107a8c90785b 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/util/map.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/map.c
> @@ -752,7 +752,7 @@ struct map *maps__find(struct rb_root *maps, u64 ip)
>                 m = rb_entry(parent, struct map, rb_node);
>                 if (ip < m->start)
>                         p = &(*p)->rb_left;
> -               else if (ip > m->end)
> +               else if (ip >= m->end)
>                         p = &(*p)->rb_right;
>                 else
>                         return m;

I keep thinking that this change is making things unclear.

I.e. the _start_ of a map (map->start) is _in_ the map, and the _end_
of a map (map->end) is _in_ the map as well.

	if (addr > m->end)

is shorter than:

	if (addr >= m->end)

"start" and "end" should have the same rule applied, i.e. if one is in,
the other is in as well.

Etc.

- Arnaldo
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists