linux-kernel - Re: perf: perf_fuzzer triggers GPF in perf_prepare

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]

Date:   Wed, 5 Dec 2018 19:33:26 +0100
From:   Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To:     Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: perf: perf_fuzzer triggers GPF in perf_prepare_sample

On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 12:11:19PM -0500, Vince Weaver wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2018, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 01:45:38PM +0100, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 10:54:55AM -0500, Vince Weaver wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > > 
> > > > I was able to trigger another oops with the perf_fuzzer with current git.
> > > > 
> > > > This is 4.20-rc5 after the fix for the very similar oops I previously 
> > > > reported got committed.
> > > > 
> > > > It seems to be pointing to the same location in the source as 
> > > > before, I guess maybe triggered a different way?
> > > 
> > > nice.. yep, looks the same
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Unfortunately this crash is not easily reproducible like the last one was.
> > > 
> > > will check
> > 
> > what model are hitting this on?
> 
> Haswell.  6/60/3.
> 
> While I can't deterministically trigger this, the fuzzer usually hits it
> within an hour or two.  Is there any debug or printk messages I can
> add that would help figure out what's going on?

I can't see how we could end up with that config other than
some corruption.. the only way I see could be that we touch
cpu->events array without checking its active_mask bit

but that does not explain why the crash happened in the same
place as before

jirka


---
diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
index ecc3e34ca955..9a2fd5a68d87 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
+++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
@@ -2404,7 +2404,7 @@ static int intel_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
 	struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc;
 	int loops;
 	u64 status;
-	int handled;
+	int handled = 0;
 	int pmu_enabled;
 
 	cpuc = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_hw_events);
@@ -2423,8 +2423,10 @@ static int intel_pmu_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
 	intel_bts_disable_local();
 	cpuc->enabled = 0;
 	__intel_pmu_disable_all();
-	handled = intel_pmu_drain_bts_buffer();
-	handled += intel_bts_interrupt();
+	if (test_bit(INTEL_PMC_IDX_FIXED_BTS, cpuc->active_mask)) {
+		handled += intel_pmu_drain_bts_buffer();
+		handled += intel_bts_interrupt();
+	}
 	status = intel_pmu_get_status();
 	if (!status)
 		goto done;