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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 16:17:41 +0200 From: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com> To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com> Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, "mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf tools: fix off-by-one error in maps On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com> wrote: > 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. > It is okay but then we need to be consistent all across. This is not the case today. I mentioned the cases I ran into. > 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