linux-kernel - [PATCH 4.14 42/62] perf/core: Fix impossible ring-buffer sizes warning

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:   Mon, 18 Feb 2019 14:43:48 +0100
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, "Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@....com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
        Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: [PATCH 4.14 42/62] perf/core: Fix impossible ring-buffer sizes warning

4.14-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>

commit 528871b456026e6127d95b1b2bd8e3a003dc1614 upstream.

The following commit:

  9dff0aa95a32 ("perf/core: Don't WARN() for impossible ring-buffer sizes")

results in perf recording failures with larger mmap areas:

  root@skl:/tmp# perf record -g -a
  failed to mmap with 12 (Cannot allocate memory)

The root cause is that the following condition is buggy:

	if (order_base_2(size) >= MAX_ORDER)
		goto fail;

The problem is that @size is in bytes and MAX_ORDER is in pages,
so the right test is:

	if (order_base_2(size) >= PAGE_SHIFT+MAX_ORDER)
		goto fail;

Fix it.

Reported-by: "Jin, Yao" <yao.jin@...ux.intel.com>
Bisected-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Analyzed-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@....com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Cc: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Fixes: 9dff0aa95a32 ("perf/core: Don't WARN() for impossible ring-buffer sizes")
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>

---
 kernel/events/ring_buffer.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- a/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c
+++ b/kernel/events/ring_buffer.c
@@ -719,7 +719,7 @@ struct ring_buffer *rb_alloc(int nr_page
 	size = sizeof(struct ring_buffer);
 	size += nr_pages * sizeof(void *);
 
-	if (order_base_2(size) >= MAX_ORDER)
+	if (order_base_2(size) >= PAGE_SHIFT+MAX_ORDER)
 		goto fail;
 
 	rb = kzalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);