Em Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 07:27:32AM +0000, Reshetova, Elena escreveu: > > Em Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 11:39:10AM +0000, Reshetova, Elena escreveu: > > > > Em Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 08:23:29PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo > > > > escreveu: > > > > > Em Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:39:35PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo > > > > escreveu: > > > > > > Em Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 05:34:54PM +0200, Elena Reshetova escreveu: > > > > > > > Now when new refcount_t type and API are finally merged > > > > > > > (see include/linux/refcount.h), the following > > > > > > > patches convert various refcounters in the tools susystem from > > atomic_t > > > > > > > to refcount_t. By doing this we prevent intentional or accidental > > > > > > > underflows or overflows that can led to use-after-free vulnerabilities. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for working on this! I was almost going to jump on doing this > > > > > > myself! > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll try and get this merged ASAP. > > > > > > > > > > So, please take a look at my tmp.perf/refcount branch at: > > > > > > > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/linux.git > > > > > > I took a look on it and it looks good. Just one thing I want to double check > > with regards to this commit: > > > > > https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/acme/linux/+/58d > > 561002587bf2572f9e6f4d222659e4068fadf%5E%21/#F0 > > > > > > And more specifically to this chunk: > > > > > > @@ -937,7 +937,7 @@ > > > munmap(map->base, > > perf_mmap__mmap_len(map)); > > > map->base = NULL; > > > map->fd = -1; > > > - atomic_set(&map->refcnt, 0); > > > + refcount_set(&map->refcnt, 0); > > > } > > > auxtrace_mmap__munmap(&map->auxtrace_mmap); > > > } > > > > > > So, when the refcount set to zero in this place, what exactly happens to the > > perf_map object after? > > > I just want to double check that we don't have another hiding reusage case > > here when refcounter later on is simply incremented vs. set to "2." > > > > So, this is an odd use of a reference count, the patch below should help > > understand it? > > Yes, it helps, indeed, but I think we have an issue here. See below inline in patch. > > > > > Those perf_mmap objects are created in a batch fashion, it being zero > > just means it isn't yet mmaped at all, and we check for that before > > using it. > > > > So, it remains a bug to do a dec for a zeroed refcount, and the > > refcount_t infrastructure will catch it, which helps tools/. > > > > - Arnaldo > > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/evlist.c b/tools/perf/util/evlist.c > > index 564b924fb48a..5a70f08d2518 100644 > > --- a/tools/perf/util/evlist.c > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/evlist.c > > @@ -974,8 +974,19 @@ static struct perf_mmap > > *perf_evlist__alloc_mmap(struct perf_evlist *evlist) > > if (!map) > > return NULL; > > > > - for (i = 0; i < evlist->nr_mmaps; i++) > > + for (i = 0; i < evlist->nr_mmaps; i++) { > > map[i].fd = -1; > > + /* > > + * When the perf_mmap() call is made we grab > > one refcount, plus > > + * one extra to let perf_evlist__mmap_consume() > > get the last > > + * events after all real references > > (perf_mmap__get()) are > > + * dropped. > > + * > > + * Each PERF_EVENT_IOC_SET_OUTPUT points to > > this mmap and > > + * thus does perf_mmap__get() on it. > > + */ > > + refcount_set(&map[i].refcnt, 0); > > + } > > return map; > > } > > > > @@ -988,6 +999,7 @@ struct mmap_params { > > static int perf_mmap__mmap(struct perf_mmap *map, > > struct mmap_params *mp, int fd) > > { > > + perf_mmap__get(map); > > /* > > * The last one will be done at perf_evlist__mmap_consume(), > > so that we > > * make sure we don't prevent tools from consuming every last > > event in > > @@ -1001,7 +1013,7 @@ static int perf_mmap__mmap(struct perf_mmap > > *map, > > * evlist layer can't just drop it when filtering events in > > * perf_evlist__filter_pollfd(). > > */ > > - refcount_set(&map->refcnt, 2); > > + perf_mmap__get(map); /* This is not a dup, see the comment > > above! */ > This change now means that instead of doing refcount_set to 2 when refcount value is "0", you are doing two > refcount_inc() via perf_mmap__get(), which is not going to do any increments when refcount value is zero. > So, in that sense having just one refcount_set to 2 with a good explanation why it is needed is better :) Duh, thanks for pointint it out, will leave the comments, remove the pair of perf_mmap__get() > When I asked about it initially, I just wanted to make sure there are no other refcount_inc()s happening on the object when its refcount value is zero. Which looks to be the case apart from the one above. > > Best Regards, > Elena. > > > map->prev = 0; > > map->mask = mp->mask; > > map->base = mmap(NULL, perf_mmap__mmap_len(map), mp- > > >prot, > > > > > > > There are multiple fixes in it to get it to build and test it, so far, > > > > > with: > > > > > > > > > > perf top -F 15000 -d 0 > > > > > > > > > > while doing kernel builds and tight usleep 1 loops to create lots of > > > > > short lived threads with its map_groups, maps, dsos, etc. > > > > > > > > > > Now running some build tests in some 36 containers with assorted distros > > > > > and cross compilers. > > > > > > > > Tomorrow I'll inject some refcount errors to test this all. > > > > > > > > > Thank you! > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > Elena. _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
