Em Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 10:12:50PM -0500, Steven Rostedt escreveu: > On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 17:55:32 -0800 > Tony Jones <tonyj@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Fix buffer overflow observed when running perf test. > > > > The overflow is when trying to evaluate "1ULL << (64 - 1)" which > > is resulting in -9223372036854775808 which overflows the 20 character > > buffer. > > > > If is possible this bug has been reported before but I still don't > > see any fix checked in: > > > > See: https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-perf-users/msg07714.html > > > > Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: linux-perf-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Tony Jones <tonyj@xxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > I have to say I've let this slide and it is not the first time a patch > went out with this fix. But this one has the correct fix because we > should use a buffer with a multiple of 4. Anyway, Tony I believe was > the first to report this anyway. > > For reference we have: > > I first heard about Tony's complaint on a post to linux-perf-users on Jan 18. > > But then we had after that: > > Michael Sartain reported it on 1/24 (and fixed by Tzvetomir) > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-trace-devel/20190125102014.19600-1-tstoyanov@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > It was later fixed again by Mathias Krause > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-trace-devel/20190223122404.21137-1-minipli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > But since Tony was first to report it, and we discussed that it should > be 24 bytes, I would say this is the patch to take. > > Again, sorry for not getting this acknowledged earlier and everyone doing > the same thing multiple times. :-/ > > Arnaldo, please take this patch. But also add: > > Reported-by: Michael Sartain <mikesart@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Reported-by: Mathias Krause <minipli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Will do. Thanks for the credit research, - Arnaldo
|