Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754603AbaDWOQr (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:16:47 -0400 Received: from mail-qg0-f51.google.com ([209.85.192.51]:48308 "EHLO mail-qg0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753286AbaDWOQp (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:16:45 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 339 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:16:45 EDT X-Google-Original-From: Vince Weaver Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:14:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Vince Weaver To: Peter Zijlstra cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [perf] yet another 32/64-bit range check failure In-Reply-To: <20140423102254.GL11096@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Message-ID: References: <20140423102254.GL11096@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 23 Apr 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:40:07PM -0400, Vince Weaver wrote: > > > > More fun found by the perf_fuzzer... > > > > In kernel/events/core.c > > SYSCALL_DEFINE5(perf_event_open, > > > > We check if flags is valid like this: > > > > /* for future expandability... */ > > if (flags & ~PERF_FLAG_ALL) > > return -EINVAL; > > > > but flags is a 64-bit value but ~PERF_FLAG_ALL is 32-bit. > > > > This means values like 0x800000000000ULL are treated as valid even though > > they aren't. > > > > This is allowing events to be allocated memory but not being freed somehow > > before returning EINVAL (a memory leak). > > At least it looks like this is happening in the huge traces I have trying > > to track down the perf_fuzzer memory corruption bug. > > > > I'd send a patch to fix the above, but it's late and I can't figure out > > where exactly to stick ULL to get PERF_FLAG_ALL to be upgraded to 64-bit. > > > > Vince > > Something like so should do I suppose. > > --- > Subject: perf: Fix perf_event_open(.flags) test > > Vince noticed that we test the (unsigned long) flags field against an > (unsigned int) constant. This would allow setting the high bits on 64bit > platforms and not get an error. > > There is nothing that uses the high bits, so it should be entirely > harmless, but we don't want userspace to accidentally set them anyway, > so fix the constants. I suppose I should make a patch for attr->sample_type and attr->read_format which after a quick audit seem to exhibit the same problem? Vince -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/