[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190513074213.GH2623@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 09:42:13 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: jolsa@...hat.com, mpe@...erman.id.au, maddy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
acme@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] perf ioctl: Add check for the sample_period value
On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 08:12:16AM +0530, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
> Add a check for sample_period value sent from userspace. Negative
> value does not make sense. And in powerpc arch code this could cause
> a recursive PMI leading to a hang (reported when running perf-fuzzer).
>
> Signed-off-by: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
> ---
> kernel/events/core.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/events/core.c b/kernel/events/core.c
> index abbd4b3b96c2..e44c90378940 100644
> --- a/kernel/events/core.c
> +++ b/kernel/events/core.c
> @@ -5005,6 +5005,9 @@ static int perf_event_period(struct perf_event *event, u64 __user *arg)
> if (perf_event_check_period(event, value))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> + if (!event->attr.freq && (value & (1ULL << 63)))
> + return -EINVAL;
Well, perf_event_attr::sample_period is __u64. Would not be the site
using it as signed be the one in error?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists