[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151020110332.GB17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:03:32 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86, perf: Optimize stack walk user accesses
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 03:54:29PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> @@ -2307,7 +2312,13 @@ perf_callchain_user(struct perf_callchain_entry *entry, struct pt_regs *regs)
> frame.next_frame = NULL;
> frame.return_address = 0;
>
> - bytes = copy_from_user_nmi(&frame, fp, sizeof(frame));
> + if (!access_ok(VERIFY_READ, fp, 16))
> + break;
> +
> + bytes = __copy_from_user_nmi(&frame.next_frame, fp, 8);
> + if (bytes != 0)
> + break;
> + bytes = __copy_from_user_nmi(&frame.return_address, fp+8, 8);
> if (bytes != 0)
> break;
>
The previous patch that introduces this function states that any caller
must have pagefault_disable() or be from interrupt context.
Perf can call this function from !interrupt context (imagine a
tracepoint or other software event), should we therefore not add a
pagefault_disable()/enable() pair around the entire while() loop?
--
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