[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55F10B9F.6000703@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 00:48:31 -0400
From: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...nel.org
CC: vincent.weaver@...ne.edu, eranian@...gle.com, jolsa@...hat.com,
kan.liang@...el.com, 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
Ping?
On 08/21/2015 04:31 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On 05/21/2015 07:17 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel.c
>> @@ -2106,7 +2106,7 @@ static struct event_constraint *
>> intel_get_event_constraints(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc, int idx,
>> struct perf_event *event)
>> {
>> - struct event_constraint *c1 = event->hw.constraint;
>> + struct event_constraint *c1 = cpuc->event_constraint[idx];
>> struct event_constraint *c2;
>
> Hey Peter,
>
> I was chasing a memory corruption in this area and I think I found
> a possible culprit:
>
> After this patch, In the code above, we'd access "cpuc->event_constraint[idx]"
> and read/change memory.
>
> The problem is that a valid value for idx is also -1, which isn't checked
> here, so we end up accessing and possibly corrupting memory that isn't ours.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Sasha
>
--
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