Linux Perf Users
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com>
Cc: 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>,
	James Clark <james.clark@linaro.org>,
	Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@amd.com>,
	linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org, selinux@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] perf test amd ibs: avoid using executable heap
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2026 08:43:01 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260701064301.GH48970@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260701062321.517351-1-omosnace@redhat.com>

On Wed, Jul 01, 2026 at 08:23:21AM +0200, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
> Making [parts of] the heap executable is dangerous and is blocked by
> SELinux on Fedora/RHEL even for an unconfined user. Replace the malloc()
> + mprotect() combo with just mmap(), creating a private anonymous rwx
> mapping, which only requires the more commonly allowed "execmem"

I do not understand. Ultimately malloc() will have to use mmap() to get
the memory too. So how is malloc() + mprotect() considered more
dangerous?

> permission under SELinux (things like JIT or regex compilation need it
> as well). mmap() with MAP_ANONYMOUS will give us a zeroed mapping that
> begins on a page boundary, so the result is equivalent to the original
> code even without a memset() or the page-alignment dance.

I would argue that having RWX is a problem, you really want RW->RO->RX
transitions, so even with mmap() you want to combine with mprotect().

Obviously this doesn't matter for this test case, but any halfway sane
JIT should really avoid keeping RWX mappings around.

> Verified that the test still passes on a machine with an AMD CPU that
> has the "ibs" CPU flag.
> 
> Fixes: 35db59fa8ea2 ("perf test amd ibs: Add sample period unit test")
> Signed-off-by: Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@redhat.com>

The patch is obviously good, simpler is more better and all that. But
the justification really smells.

Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>

If and when we get AMD to support IBT, this thing will need more
changes, but alas.

> ---
> 
> v2: fix mmap() failure check (found by sashiko-bot)
> 
>  tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/amd-ibs-period.c | 20 ++++++--------------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/amd-ibs-period.c b/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/amd-ibs-period.c
> index 6a92b3a23ed7a..32713f8fcd5c8 100644
> --- a/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/amd-ibs-period.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/arch/x86/tests/amd-ibs-period.c
> @@ -46,7 +46,6 @@ static int dummy_workload_1(unsigned long count)
>  {
>  	int (*func)(void);
>  	int ret = 0;
> -	char *p;
>  	char insn1[] = {
>  		0xb8, 0x01, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, /* mov 1,%eax */
>  		0xc3, /* ret */
> @@ -59,18 +58,11 @@ static int dummy_workload_1(unsigned long count)
>  		0xcc, /* int 3 */
>  	};
>  
> -	p = calloc(2, page_size);
> -	if (!p) {
> -		printf("malloc() failed. %m");
> -		return 1;
> -	}
> -
> -	func = (void *)((unsigned long)(p + page_size - 1) & ~(page_size - 1));
> -
> -	ret = mprotect(func, page_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC);
> -	if (ret) {
> -		printf("mprotect() failed. %m");
> -		goto out;
> +	func = mmap(NULL, page_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE | PROT_EXEC,
> +		    MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0);
> +	if (func == MAP_FAILED) {
> +		pr_debug("mmap() failed. %m\n");
> +		return -1;
>  	}
>  
>  	if (count < 100000)
> @@ -93,7 +85,7 @@ static int dummy_workload_1(unsigned long count)
>  	}
>  
>  out:
> -	free(p);
> +	munmap(func, page_size);
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> -- 
> 2.54.0
> 

  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-07-01  6:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-07-01  6:23 [PATCH v2] perf test amd ibs: avoid using executable heap Ondrej Mosnacek
2026-07-01  6:33 ` sashiko-bot
2026-07-01  6:43 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2026-07-01 16:59   ` Ravi Bangoria
2026-07-01 18:54     ` Ian Rogers
2026-07-02 10:17     ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-07-02 11:11       ` Ravi Bangoria
2026-07-02 11:12 ` Ravi Bangoria

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=20260701064301.GH48970@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=acme@kernel.org \
    --cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
    --cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=irogers@google.com \
    --cc=james.clark@linaro.org \
    --cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
    --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=omosnace@redhat.com \
    --cc=ravi.bangoria@amd.com \
    --cc=selinux@vger.kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox