From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo" <acme@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] perf jitdump: Size code_move event allocation with idr_size
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2026 13:47:37 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260903134737.9B52C1F00A3E@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260903132251.237029-5-acme@kernel.org>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Critical] Replacing the hardcoded +16 padding with +idr_size introduces a heap buffer overflow in jit_repipe_code_move() when PERF_SAMPLE_TID is missing but PERF_SAMPLE_TIME is present, and the filename length approaches PATH_MAX. This shares the same root cause as a pre-existing vulnerability in jit_repipe_code_load().
--
commit 631d6cebecdf5de246fc9c8ce57d27948626c5ac
Author: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>
Subject: perf jitdump: Size code_move event allocation with idr_size
This commit alters the event buffer allocation in jit_repipe_code_move()
to dynamically scale with idr_size rather than using a static padding.
> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/jitdump.c b/tools/perf/util/jitdump.c
> --- a/tools/perf/util/jitdump.c
> +++ b/tools/perf/util/jitdump.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -636,9 +636,10 @@ static int jit_repipe_code_move(struct jit_buf_desc *jd, union jr_entry *jr)
> idr_size = jd->machine->id_hdr_size;
>
> /*
> - * +16 to account for sample_id_all (hack)
> + * Sample ID is written past the end of the mmap2 record; size
> + * the allocation to account for it instead of a hardcoded +16.
> */
> - event = calloc(1, sizeof(*event) + 16);
> + event = calloc(1, sizeof(*event) + idr_size);
[Severity: Critical]
Does this regression introduce a heap buffer overflow when setting the event
time?
Looking later in jit_repipe_code_move(), we calculate the id pointer based on
header.size and idr_size:
id = (void *)((unsigned long)event + event->mmap.header.size - idr_size);
if (jd->sample_type & PERF_SAMPLE_TID) {
id->pid = pid;
id->tid = tid;
}
if (jd->sample_type & PERF_SAMPLE_TIME)
id->time = convert_timestamp(jd, jr->load.p.timestamp);
If PERF_SAMPLE_TID is missing from the configured sample type but
PERF_SAMPLE_TIME is present, idr_size evaluates to 8, making the allocation
size become sizeof(*event) + 8.
Because id->time is located at an 8-byte offset within the id structure
(after pid and tid), writing to id->time accesses memory 8 bytes past the
start of id.
When the filename string approaches PATH_MAX and header.size nears the base
allocation size, this writes exactly past the end of the calloc heap
allocation. Could this memory corruption be triggered by parsing a
maliciously crafted perf.data file?
This is a pre-existing issue, but does this exact same pattern also cause
an out-of-bounds write in jit_repipe_code_load()?
Looking at jit_repipe_code_load(), it similarly uses the idr_size for its
allocation limit and unconditionally performs the same timestamp assignment:
tools/perf/util/jitdump.c:jit_repipe_code_load() {
...
event = calloc(1, sizeof(*event) + idr_size);
...
id = (void *)((unsigned long)event + event->mmap.header.size - idr_size);
if (jd->sample_type & PERF_SAMPLE_TID) {
id->pid = pid;
id->tid = tid;
}
if (jd->sample_type & PERF_SAMPLE_TIME)
id->time = convert_timestamp(jd, jr->load.p.timestamp);
...
}
Should both load and move operations account for the struct offset of
id->time when sizing the buffer?
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260903132251.237029-1-acme@kernel.org?part=4
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-03 13:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-03 13:22 [PATCH v1 0/5] perf tools: Fix jitdump and dso handling Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2026-09-03 13:22 ` [PATCH 1/5] perf jitdump: Byte-swap debug entries via unaligned-safe accessors Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2026-09-03 13:33 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-03 13:22 ` [PATCH 2/5] perf genelf: Use unaligned-safe accessors for debug entries Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2026-09-03 13:38 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-03 13:22 ` [PATCH 3/5] perf jitdump: Free unwinding data even when eh_frame_hdr_size is zero Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2026-09-03 13:39 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-03 17:05 ` Ian Rogers
2026-09-03 13:22 ` [PATCH 4/5] perf jitdump: Size code_move event allocation with idr_size Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2026-09-03 13:47 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-09-03 13:22 ` [PATCH 5/5] perf dso: Defer dropping the open list reference until after the lock Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2026-09-03 13:51 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-03 16:40 ` Ian Rogers
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=20260903134737.9B52C1F00A3E@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/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