All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yujun Dong <yujundong@pascal-lab.net>
To: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
	linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
	"Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf branch: Fix heap out-of-bounds write in branch_type_count()
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2025 15:31:54 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1f73657c-74b3-44a7-bee4-b7cda1a75a02@pascal-lab.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <17bdc644-329a-42fb-aba2-d7f80f2a1037@arm.com>

On 2025/8/11 15:03, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
 > On 09/08/25 3:08 PM, Yujun Dong wrote:
 > > The branch_type_count() function writes to 
st->new_counts[flags->new_type]
 > > when flags->type is PERF_BR_EXTEND_ABI. However, while the array
 > > st->new_counts is sized for PERF_BR_NEW_MAX (8) entries, the field
 > > flags->new_type is a 4-bit unsigned value and may hold values up to 15.
 > >
 > > This mismatch allows crafted perf data to trigger a heap out-of-bounds
 > > write when flags->new_type >= 8, leading to memory corruption.
 >
 > Crafted ? How could flags->new_type >= 8 when PERF_BR_NEW_MAX is 
capped at 8.
 > Is this a real scenario that happened on a system ?
 >

Thanks for your review and for raising that question. The new_type field
in struct branch_flags is declared as a 4-bit bitfield (u64 new_type:4),
meaning it can hold values from 0 to 15, even though PERF_BR_NEW_MAX is
defined as 8. So, it's entirely possible for flags->new_type to be >= 8.

In fact, I've observed such cases when running real-world perf record/top,
where perf.data produced contains invalid new_type values, likely due to
other bugs or unexpected data corruption. Additionally, a maliciously
crafted perf.data file can also force this out-of-bounds write.

 > >
 > > Add a bounds check to ensure flags->new_type is less than
 > > PERF_BR_NEW_MAX before accessing the new_counts array.
 >
 > But it might make sense to add this check just to be on the safer side.
 >

Notably, new_type is only used in two places:
1. In branch_new_type_name(), where the bounds are already validated.
2. In branch_type_count(), where the current patch now adds the
necessary check.

Admittedly, the mismatch between the bit-field width (0-15) and
PERF_BR_NEW_MAX (8) is the root cause. While adjusting the bit-field
to match PERF_BR_NEW_MAX would also resolve the mismatch, that risks
breaking existing compatibility. Therefore, adding a bounds check at
the use site is the least disruptive correction.

 > >
 > > Fixes: 0ddea8e2a0c2 ("perf branch: Extend branch type classification")
 > > Signed-off-by: Yujun Dong <yujundong@pascal-lab.net>
 > > ---
 > >  tools/perf/util/branch.c | 8 +++++---
 > >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
 > >
 > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/branch.c b/tools/perf/util/branch.c
 > > index 3712be067464..8ea6628c7735 100644
 > > --- a/tools/perf/util/branch.c
 > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/branch.c
 > > @@ -21,10 +21,12 @@ void branch_type_count(struct branch_type_stat 
*st, struct branch_flags *flags,
 > >      if (flags->type == PERF_BR_UNKNOWN || from == 0)
 > >          return;
 > >
 > > -    if (flags->type == PERF_BR_EXTEND_ABI)
 > > -        st->new_counts[flags->new_type]++;
 > > -    else
 > > +    if (flags->type == PERF_BR_EXTEND_ABI) {
 > > +        if (flags->new_type < PERF_BR_NEW_MAX)
 > > +            st->new_counts[flags->new_type]++;
 > > +    } else {
 > >          st->counts[flags->type]++;
 > > +    }
 > >
 > >      if (flags->type == PERF_BR_COND) {
 > >          if (to > from)
 >

  reply	other threads:[~2025-08-12  7:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20250809093812.308027-1-yujundong@pascal-lab.net>
2025-08-11  7:03 ` [PATCH] perf branch: Fix heap out-of-bounds write in branch_type_count() Anshuman Khandual
2025-08-12  7:31   ` Yujun Dong [this message]
2025-08-13 14:20     ` Anshuman Khandual

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1f73657c-74b3-44a7-bee4-b7cda1a75a02@pascal-lab.net \
    --to=yujundong@pascal-lab.net \
    --cc=acme@kernel.org \
    --cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
    --cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
    --cc=irogers@google.com \
    --cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
    --cc=kan.liang@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.