[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180213094551.GA26936@krava>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:45:51 +0100
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: Jin Yao <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: acme@...nel.org, jolsa@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
mingo@...hat.com, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com,
Linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ak@...ux.intel.com,
kan.liang@...el.com, yao.jin@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf report: Fix a memory corrupton issue when enabling
--branch-history
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 04:44:28PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:
> Following command lines will cause perf crash.
>
> perf record -j call -g -a <application>
> perf report --branch-history
>
> *** Error in `perf': double free or corruption (!prev): 0x00000000104aa040 ***
> ======= Backtrace: =========
> /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x77725)[0x7f6b37254725]
> /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x7ff4a)[0x7f6b3725cf4a]
> /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(cfree+0x4c)[0x7f6b37260abc]
> perf[0x51b914]
> perf(hist_entry_iter__add+0x1e5)[0x51f305]
> perf[0x43cf01]
> perf[0x4fa3bf]
> perf[0x4fa923]
> perf[0x4fd396]
> perf[0x4f9614]
> perf(perf_session__process_events+0x89e)[0x4fc38e]
> perf(cmd_report+0x15d2)[0x43f202]
> perf[0x4a059f]
> perf(main+0x631)[0x427b71]
> /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xf0)[0x7f6b371fd830]
> perf(_start+0x29)[0x427d89]
>
> The memory corruption happens at:
>
> iter_add_next_cumulative_entry()
> {
> ...
> for (i = 0; i < iter->curr; i++) {
> ...
> }
>
> Whatever in iter_next_cumulative_entry() or in iter_add_next_cumulative_entry(),
> they all don't check if iter->curr exceeds the array 'he_cache[]'.
>
> If there are too many nodes in callchain, it's possible that iter->curr >
> iter->max_stack, then memory corruption occurs.
>
> This patch will reallocate array 'he_cache[]' in iter_next_cumulative_entry()
> if necessary (the case of too many nodes in callchain).
right, the max_stack does not say how many nodes end up in
callchain_cursor at the end.. good catch, please mention
that also in the changelog
however we know the final count from callchain_cursor itself,
the attached patch might do the same job, right?
also could we now get rid of iter->max_stack?
thanks,
jirka
---
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/hist.c b/tools/perf/util/hist.c
index b6140950301e..b50b7b70dcca 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/hist.c
+++ b/tools/perf/util/hist.c
@@ -879,7 +879,7 @@ iter_prepare_cumulative_entry(struct hist_entry_iter *iter,
* cumulated only one time to prevent entries more than 100%
* overhead.
*/
- he_cache = malloc(sizeof(*he_cache) * (iter->max_stack + 1));
+ he_cache = malloc(sizeof(*he_cache) * (callchain_cursor.nr + 1));
if (he_cache == NULL)
return -ENOMEM;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists