[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160915140723.GG5020@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 16:07:23 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
vince@...ter.net, eranian@...gle.com,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] perf/x86: Tighten up the kernel_ip() check
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 04:29:43PM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
> The kernel_ip() filter is used mostly by the DS/LBR code to look at the
> branch addresses, but Intel PT also uses it to validate the address
> filter offsets for kernel addresses, for which it is not sufficient:
> supplying something in bits 64:48 that's not a sign extension of the lower
> address bits (like 0xf00d000000000000) throws a #GP.
>
> In the interest of improving everybody's kernel address checks, this
> patch adds address validation to kernel_ip().
>
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org # 4.7
> Reported-by: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/events/perf_event.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h b/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h
> index 5874d8de1f..88fb389356 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h
> @@ -783,7 +783,7 @@ static inline bool kernel_ip(unsigned long ip)
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_32
> return ip > PAGE_OFFSET;
> #else
> - return (long)ip < 0;
> + return (long)ip < 0 && virt_addr_valid(ip);
> #endif
> }
I have a slight performance worry, this ends up being called a _lot_ on
older machines that have to do the PEBS LBR-fixup.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists