linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] tools/perf: Fix the mask in regs_dump_

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: <5767B6FD.4080708@huawei.com>
Date:	Mon, 20 Jun 2016 17:27:25 +0800
From:	"Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@...wei.com>
To:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
	Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
	"Yury Norov" <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] tools/perf: Fix the mask in regs_dump__printf and



On 2016/6/20 17:18, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 02:14:01PM +0530, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
>> When decoding the perf_regs mask in regs_dump__printf(),
>> we loop through the mask using find_first_bit and find_next_bit functions.
>> "mask" is of type "u64", but sent as a "unsigned long *" to
>> lib functions along with sizeof(). While the exisitng code works fine in
>> most of the case, the logic is broken when using a 32bit perf on a
>> 64bit kernel (Big Endian). We end up reading the wrong word of the u64
>> first in the lib functions.
> hum, I still don't see why this happens.. why do we read the
> wrong word in this case?

If you read a u64 using (u32 *)(&val)[0] and (u32 *)(&val)[1]
you can get wrong value. This is what _find_next_bit() is doing.

In a big endian environment where 'unsigned long' is 32 bits
long, "(u32 *)(&val)[0]" gets upper 32 bits, but without this patch
perf assumes it gets lower 32 bits. The root cause is wrongly convert
u64 value to bitmap.


Thank you.