On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 08:19:47PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 7:18 AM Kevin Sheldrake > <Kevin.Sheldrake@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Resent due to some failure at my end. Apologies if it arrives twice. > > > > From 63e34d4106b4dd767f9bfce951f8a35f14b52072 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Kevin Sheldrake <kevin.sheldrake@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2020 12:18:53 +0000 > > Subject: [PATCH] Update perf ring buffer to prevent corruption from > > bpf_perf_output_event() > > > > The bpf_perf_output_event() helper takes a sample size parameter of u64, but > > the underlying perf ring buffer uses a u16 internally. This 64KB maximum size > > has to also accommodate a variable sized header. Failure to observe this > > restriction can result in corruption of the perf ring buffer as samples > > overlap. > > > > Track the sample size and return -E2BIG if too big to fit into the u16 > > size parameter. > > > > Signed-off-by: Kevin Sheldrake <kevin.sheldrake@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > The fix makes sense to me. > Peter, Ingo, > should I take it through the bpf tree or you want to route via tip? What are you doing to trigger this? The Changelog is devoid of much useful information?
