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  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:	Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:03:35 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <>
To:	Alexei Starovoitov <>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>, Wang Nan <>,
	He Kuang <>, Kaixu Xia <>,
	Daniel Borkmann <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next] bpf: fix bpf_perf_event_read() helper

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 05:10:14PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
> @@ -199,6 +199,11 @@ static u64 bpf_perf_event_read(u64 r1, u64 index, u64 r3, u64 r4, u64 r5)
>  	if (!event)
>  		return -ENOENT;
> +	/* make sure event is local and doesn't have pmu::count */
> +	if (event->oncpu != smp_processor_id() ||
> +	    event->pmu->count)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * we don't know if the function is run successfully by the
>  	 * return value. It can be judged in other places, such as

I might want to go turn that into a helper function to keep !perf code
from poking around in the event itself, but its ok for now I suppose.

> @@ -207,7 +212,7 @@ static u64 bpf_perf_event_read(u64 r1, u64 index, u64 r3, u64 r4, u64 r5)
>  	return perf_event_read_local(event);
>  }

So the bpf_perf_event_read() returns the count value, does this not also
mean that returning -EINVAL here is also 'wrong'?

I mean, sure an actual count value that high is unlikely, but its still
a broken interface.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists