[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <e1d0fcf5-d7f8-44a0-a3b8-339f2b79fb2c@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 14:08:32 +0530
From: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
To: mpe@...erman.id.au, peterz@...radead.org
Cc: jolsa@...hat.com, maddy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, acme@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf ioctl: Add check for the sample_period value
Peter / mpe,
Is the v2 looks good? If so, can anyone of you please pick this up.
On 6/4/19 9:59 AM, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
> perf_event_open() limits the sample_period to 63 bits. See
> commit 0819b2e30ccb ("perf: Limit perf_event_attr::sample_period
> to 63 bits"). Make ioctl() consistent with it.
>
> Also on powerpc, negative sample_period could cause a recursive
> PMIs 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;
> +
> event_function_call(event, __perf_event_period, &value);
>
> return 0;
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists