linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf trace: Increase syscall handler map size to 1024

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAP-5=fVNgN5Budwaao_GqrZRN2wSrvo7CQySU-D9eEpnwBhY2A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2025 09:45:33 -0700
From: Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: Howard Chu <howardchu95@...il.com>, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>, 
	Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, 
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, 
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf trace: Increase syscall handler map size to 1024

On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 3:14 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Ian,
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 08:05:37AM -0700, Ian Rogers wrote:
> > On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 4:36 PM Howard Chu <howardchu95@...il.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Namhyung,
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 4:25 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The syscalls_sys_{enter,exit} map in augmented_raw_syscalls.bpf.c has
> > > > max entries of 512.  Usually syscall numbers are smaller than this but
> > > > x86 has x32 ABI where syscalls start from 512.
> > > >
> > > > That makes trace__init_syscalls_bpf_prog_array_maps() fail in the middle
> > > > of the loop when it accesses those keys.  As the loop iteration is not
> > > > ordered by syscall numbers anymore, the failure can affect non-x32
> > > > syscalls.
> > > >
> > > > Let's increase the map size to 1024 so that it can handle those ABIs
> > > > too.  While most systems won't need this, increasing the size will be
> > > > safer for potential future changes.
> >
> > Do we need to worry about MIPS where syscalls can be offset by 1000s?
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/8ed7dfb2-1e4d-4aa4-a04b-0397a89365d1@app.fastmail.com/
>
> Argh..
>
> > We could do with a map that combines BPF_MAP_TYPE_HASH with the tails
> > calls of BPF_MAP_TYPE_PROG_ARRAY.
>
> Right, it'd complicate things but I think it's doable.

Should we merge the x32 fix while waiting for the hash fix?

Thanks,
Ian