linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] perf: Fix u16 overflows

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

Message-ID: <20150914090632.GO18489@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date:	Mon, 14 Sep 2015 11:06:32 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vincent.weaver@...ne.edu,
	acme@...nel.org, eranian@...gle.com, jolsa@...hat.com,
	alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/3] perf: Fix u16 overflows

On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 10:11:20AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> 
> > Vince reported that its possible to overflow the various size fields
> > and get weird stuff if you stick too many events in a group.
> > 
> > Put a lid on this by requiring the fixed record size not exceed 16k.
> > This is still a fair amount of events (silly amount really) and leaves
> > plenty room for callchains and stack dwarves while also avoiding
> > overflowing the u16 variables.
> 
> Does this leave a natural ABI extension route here, in case in the future it 
> becomes a problem? We should take aside a value to mean 'larger record' or such?

So this all is a result of:

struct perf_event_header {
	__u32   type;
	__u16   misc;
	__u16   size;
};

And we've not even done the 'sensible' thing of interpreting @size as
@size*8 :/ That is, because entries must be u64 aligned, the lower 3
bits of @size will always be 0.

Now there are of course ways we can 'grow' if we really have to. One
would be to set aside a MISC bit to indicate we should do that *8 thing,
which would allow up to 512 Kb records.

That said, 64k is already quite a lot of data, and I'm not sure we
want to have records bigger than that. Certainly not for samples,
copying that much data on an interrupt is just not going to be fast.

And I'm not sure there's a sensible use-case for having this many events
in a group (and there's good reasons not to do it).

In any case, the patch only pokes at internal stuff, the ABI isn't
affected beyond refusing to create humongous groups.
--
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/