From: Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Eranian Stephane <eranian@google.com>,
Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@amd.com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@amd.com>,
Ananth Narayan <ananth.narayan@amd.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
bpf@vger.kernel.org, Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@intel.com>,
Zide Chen <zide.chen@intel.com>,
Falcon Thomas <thomas.falcon@intel.com>,
Xudong Hao <xudong.hao@intel.com>,
Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>,
Sashiko <sashiko-bot@kernel.org>
Subject: [Patch v5 17/18] perf/x86/intel: Pass LBR stack size into store_lbr()
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2026 12:39:13 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20261029043914.1395147-18-dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261029043914.1395147-1-dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>
intel_pmu_store_lbr() assumes the LBR stack always contains
x86_pmu.lbr_nr entries, but arch-PEBS can use a smaller configured depth.
This can result in out-of-bounds reads when the stack is shallower than
the hardware maximum.
Add a lbr_nr parameter to the helper so the code only processes the
available entries and avoids overrunning the LBR buffer.
Reported-by: Sashiko <sashiko-bot@kernel.org>
Fixes: d21954c8a0ff ("perf/x86/intel: Process arch-PEBS records or record fragments")
Signed-off-by: Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>
---
arch/x86/events/intel/ds.c | 8 ++++----
arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c | 16 +++++++++-------
arch/x86/events/perf_event.h | 2 +-
3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/ds.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/ds.c
index 8444670cee4a..ac452083de7a 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/intel/ds.c
+++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/ds.c
@@ -2591,12 +2591,12 @@ static void setup_pebs_adaptive_sample_data(struct perf_event *event,
if (format_group & PEBS_DATACFG_LBRS) {
struct lbr_entry *lbr = next_record;
- int num_lbr = ((format_group >> PEBS_DATACFG_LBR_SHIFT)
+ unsigned int num_lbr = ((format_group >> PEBS_DATACFG_LBR_SHIFT)
& 0xff) + 1;
next_record = next_record + num_lbr * sizeof(struct lbr_entry);
if (has_branch_stack(event)) {
- intel_pmu_store_pebs_lbrs(lbr);
+ intel_pmu_store_pebs_lbrs(lbr, num_lbr);
intel_pmu_lbr_save_brstack(data, cpuc, event);
}
}
@@ -2777,7 +2777,7 @@ static void setup_arch_pebs_sample_data(struct perf_event *event,
if (header->lbr) {
struct arch_pebs_lbr_header *lbr_header = next_record;
struct lbr_entry *lbr;
- int num_lbr;
+ unsigned int num_lbr;
next_record = lbr_header + 1;
lbr = next_record;
@@ -2788,7 +2788,7 @@ static void setup_arch_pebs_sample_data(struct perf_event *event,
next_record += num_lbr * sizeof(struct lbr_entry);
if (has_branch_stack(event)) {
- intel_pmu_store_pebs_lbrs(lbr);
+ intel_pmu_store_pebs_lbrs(lbr, num_lbr);
intel_pmu_lbr_save_brstack(data, cpuc, event);
}
}
diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
index e9336d570242..f0098b0f16d3 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
+++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
@@ -911,7 +911,7 @@ static __always_inline u16 get_lbr_cycles(u64 info)
static_assert((64 - PERF_BRANCH_ENTRY_INFO_BITS_MAX) > LBR_INFO_BR_CNTR_NUM * LBR_INFO_BR_CNTR_BITS);
-static void intel_pmu_store_lbr(struct lbr_entry *entries,
+static void intel_pmu_store_lbr(struct lbr_entry *entries, int lbr_nr,
struct perf_branch_stack *lbr_stack,
struct perf_branch_entry *lbr_entries)
{
@@ -921,7 +921,7 @@ static void intel_pmu_store_lbr(struct lbr_entry *entries,
bool mispred;
int i;
- for (i = 0; i < x86_pmu.lbr_nr; i++) {
+ for (i = 0; i < lbr_nr; i++) {
lbr = entries ? &entries[i] : NULL;
e = &lbr_entries[i];
@@ -1027,7 +1027,7 @@ static void intel_pmu_arch_lbr_read(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc,
struct perf_branch_stack *lbr_stack,
struct perf_branch_entry *lbr_entries)
{
- intel_pmu_store_lbr(NULL, lbr_stack, lbr_entries);
+ intel_pmu_store_lbr(NULL, x86_pmu.lbr_nr, lbr_stack, lbr_entries);
}
static void
@@ -1038,14 +1038,15 @@ intel_pmu_arch_lbr_read_xsave(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc,
struct x86_perf_task_context_arch_lbr_xsave *xsave = cpuc->lbr_xsave;
if (!xsave) {
- intel_pmu_store_lbr(NULL, lbr_stack, lbr_entries);
+ intel_pmu_store_lbr(NULL, x86_pmu.lbr_nr, lbr_stack, lbr_entries);
return;
}
xsave->header.xfeatures = 0;
xsaves(&xsave->xsave, XFEATURE_MASK_LBR);
if (xsave->header.xfeatures & XFEATURE_MASK_LBR) {
- intel_pmu_store_lbr(xsave->lbr.entries, lbr_stack, lbr_entries);
+ intel_pmu_store_lbr(xsave->lbr.entries, x86_pmu.lbr_nr,
+ lbr_stack, lbr_entries);
} else {
/* Clear the LBR stack to avoid leaking stale entries. */
lbr_stack->nr = 0;
@@ -1323,7 +1324,7 @@ intel_pmu_lbr_filter(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc,
}
}
-void intel_pmu_store_pebs_lbrs(struct lbr_entry *lbr)
+void intel_pmu_store_pebs_lbrs(struct lbr_entry *lbr, unsigned int lbr_nr)
{
struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc = this_cpu_ptr(&cpu_hw_events);
@@ -1334,7 +1335,8 @@ void intel_pmu_store_pebs_lbrs(struct lbr_entry *lbr)
else
cpuc->lbr_stack.hw_idx = intel_pmu_lbr_tos();
- intel_pmu_store_lbr(lbr, &cpuc->lbr_stack, cpuc->lbr_entries);
+ intel_pmu_store_lbr(lbr, min(lbr_nr, x86_pmu.lbr_nr),
+ &cpuc->lbr_stack, cpuc->lbr_entries);
intel_pmu_lbr_filter(cpuc, &cpuc->lbr_stack,
cpuc->lbr_entries, cpuc->lbr_counters);
}
diff --git a/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h b/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h
index 160df7b99621..feceeebf0d06 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h
+++ b/arch/x86/events/perf_event.h
@@ -1967,7 +1967,7 @@ void intel_pmu_pebs_late_setup(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc);
void intel_pmu_drain_pebs_buffer(void);
-void intel_pmu_store_pebs_lbrs(struct lbr_entry *lbr);
+void intel_pmu_store_pebs_lbrs(struct lbr_entry *lbr, unsigned int lbr_nr);
void intel_pebs_init(void);
--
2.34.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-29 4:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-29 4:38 [Patch v5 00/18] perf/x86: Fix multiple LBR sampling issues Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 4:38 ` [Patch v5 01/18] perf/x86: Disable LBR if x86_pmu.lbr_nr exceeds MAX_LBR_ENTRIES Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 5:03 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-29 9:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-29 9:56 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-10-29 10:19 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-29 4:38 ` [Patch v5 02/18] perf/x86/intel: Validate LBR XSAVE state before updating LBR stack Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 9:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-29 10:09 ` Mi, Dapeng
2026-10-29 4:38 ` [Patch v5 03/18] perf/x86/amd/lbr: Limit branch snapshots to valid entries Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 4:39 ` [Patch v5 04/18] perf/x86/intel/lbr: " Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 4:39 ` [Patch v5 05/18] perf/x86: Add lbr_enabled to track LBR state Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 4:39 ` [Patch v5 06/18] perf/x86/amd: Avoid re-enabling PMU and LBR for BPF when disabled Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 5:08 ` sashiko-bot
2026-10-29 4:39 ` [Patch v5 07/18] perf/x86/intel: Add helper to enable PMU without LBR Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 4:39 ` [Patch v5 08/18] perf/x86/intel: Avoid re-enabling PMU and LBR for BPF when disabled Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 4:39 ` [Patch v5 09/18] perf/x86/intel: Keep LBR frozen throughout PMI handling Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 10:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-29 4:39 ` [Patch v5 10/18] perf/x86/intel: Allow LBR read helpers to operate on explicit stacks Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 10:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-29 4:39 ` [Patch v5 11/18] perf/x86/intel: Use a dedicated LBR stack for BPF snapshotting Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 10:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-29 4:39 ` [Patch v5 12/18] perf/x86/intel: Always snapshot live hardware LBR state for BPF Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 10:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-29 4:39 ` [Patch v5 13/18] perf/x86/intel: Refresh LBR stack for non-PEBS LBR events if needed Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 11:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-10-29 4:39 ` [Patch v5 14/18] perf/x86/intel: Account arch-PEBS in lbr_pebs_users Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 4:39 ` [Patch v5 15/18] perf/x86/intel: Clear raw LBR counters in the LBR stack Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 4:39 ` [Patch v5 16/18] perf/x86/intel: Refill LBR stack for LBR counter events in PMI handler Dapeng Mi
2026-10-29 4:39 ` Dapeng Mi [this message]
2026-10-29 4:39 ` [Patch v5 18/18] perf/core: Don't overwrite shared LBR stack depth Dapeng Mi
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=20261029043914.1395147-18-dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com \
--to=dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=ananth.narayan@amd.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dapeng1.mi@intel.com \
--cc=eranian@google.com \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=ravi.bangoria@amd.com \
--cc=sandipan.das@amd.com \
--cc=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=song@kernel.org \
--cc=thomas.falcon@intel.com \
--cc=xudong.hao@intel.com \
--cc=zide.chen@intel.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox