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>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@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>,
stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [Patch v3 4/8] perf/x86/intel: Fix kernel address leakages in LBR stack
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2026 17:01:10 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260612090114.3188886-5-dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260612090114.3188886-1-dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>
Before Arch LBR gained CPL filtering support, a user-only branch stack
could still contain kernel addresses. As a result, kernel branch records
may be exposed to user space even when PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_USER is
requested.
For example, on Intel Tiger Lake, the following command can still report
SYSRET/ERET entries with kernel-space from addresses:
```
$./perf record -e cycles:p -o - --branch-filter any,save_type,u -- \
./perf bench syscall basic --loop 1000 | \
./perf script -i - --fields brstack|tr ' ' '\n'| \
grep -E '0x[89a-f][0-9a-f]{15}'
Total time: 0.000 [sec]
0.219000 usecs/op
4,566,210 ops/sec
[ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
[ perf record: Captured and wrote 0.551 MB - ]
0xffffffff93c001c8/0x7f12a2b1d647/P/-/-/16959/SYSRET/-
0xffffffff93c001c8/0x7f12a2b1d5c2/P/-/-/17535/SYSRET/-
0xffffffff93c01928/0x7f12a2861000/P/-/-/6719/ERET/-
0xffffffff93c01928/0x7f12a297a000/P/-/-/8575/ERET/-
```
The problem is that intel_pmu_lbr_filter() does not fully validate the
privilege level of sampled entries. It filters some mismatches based on
the branch type and the to address, but it does not reject entries whose
from address violates the requested branch privilege filter.
Fix this by extending software filtering to validate both from and to
addresses against br_sel. Any LBR entry contains kernel address does not
match the requested user filter is dropped. This prevents kernel
addresses from appearing in user-only branch stacks.
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Reported-by: Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>
Fixes: 47125db27e47 ("perf/x86/intel/lbr: Support Architectural LBR")
Signed-off-by: Dapeng Mi <dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com>
---
arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c | 12 +++++++++---
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
index e2657f791e50..16eef1537816 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
+++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/lbr.c
@@ -1212,7 +1212,7 @@ intel_pmu_lbr_filter(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc)
{
u64 from, to;
int br_sel = cpuc->br_sel;
- int i, j, type, to_plm;
+ int i, j, type, from_plm, to_plm;
bool compress = false;
/* if sampling all branches, then nothing to filter */
@@ -1244,8 +1244,14 @@ intel_pmu_lbr_filter(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc)
type |= X86_BR_NO_TX;
}
- /* if type does not correspond, then discard */
- if (type == X86_BR_NONE || (br_sel & type) != type) {
+ from_plm = kernel_ip(from) ? X86_BR_KERNEL : X86_BR_USER;
+ /*
+ * If type does not correspond, then discard.
+ * Specifically reject entries whose from address is in
+ * kernel space when only X86_BR_USER is requested.
+ */
+ if (type == X86_BR_NONE || (br_sel & type) != type ||
+ (!(br_sel & X86_BR_KERNEL) && (from_plm & X86_BR_KERNEL))) {
cpuc->lbr_entries[i].from = 0;
compress = true;
}
--
2.34.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-12 9:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-12 9:01 [Patch v3 0/8] perf/x86: Miscellaneous PMU bug fixes Dapeng Mi
2026-06-12 9:01 ` [Patch v3 1/8] perf/x86/intel: Remove anythread_deprecated bit from perf_capabilities Dapeng Mi
2026-06-12 9:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-06-12 9:01 ` [Patch v3 2/8] perf/x86/intel: Keep cap_user_rdpmc in sync with RDPMC user-disable state Dapeng Mi
2026-06-12 9:01 ` [Patch v3 3/8] perf/x86/intel: Fallback to sw branch type decoding if no hw decoding Dapeng Mi
2026-06-12 9:21 ` sashiko-bot
2026-06-12 9:01 ` Dapeng Mi [this message]
2026-06-12 9:18 ` [Patch v3 4/8] perf/x86/intel: Fix kernel address leakages in LBR stack sashiko-bot
2026-06-12 9:01 ` [Patch v3 5/8] perf/x86/intel: Validate the return value of intel_pmu_init_hybrid() Dapeng Mi
2026-06-12 9:31 ` sashiko-bot
2026-06-12 9:01 ` [Patch v3 6/8] perf/x86/intel: Drop fixed-counter PEBS constraints for baseline PEBS Dapeng Mi
2026-06-12 9:01 ` [Patch v3 7/8] perf/core: Fix kernel register info leak via hardware skid Dapeng Mi
2026-06-12 9:01 ` [Patch v3 8/8] perf/core: Check kernel access when kernel callchains are requested 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=20260612090114.3188886-5-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=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=stable@vger.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