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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 20 Jun 2016 15:22:57 +0530
From:	Madhavan Srinivasan <maddy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>, "Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@...wei.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 Monday 20 June 2016 03:10 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 05:27:25PM +0800, Wangnan (F) wrote:
>>
>> 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.

Also in find_first_bit().

>>
>> 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.
> i see, could you please put this into comment in the code?
>
> also we could have common function for that, to keep it on
> one place only, like bitmap_from_u64 or so

Sure will do.

>
> thanks,
> jirka
>