Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 Oct 2014 17:17:12 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] perf tools: fix off-by-one error in maps | From | Stephane Eranian <> |
| |
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com> wrote: > Em Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 04:17:41PM +0200, Stephane Eranian escreveu: >> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo >> <acme@redhat.com> wrote: >> > Em Tue, Oct 07, 2014 at 02:47:19PM +0900, Namhyung Kim escreveu: >> >> On Mon, 6 Oct 2014 10:35:32 +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote: >> >> > This patch fixes off-by-one errors in the management of maps. >> >> > A map is defined by start address and length as implemented by map__new(): >> > >> >> > map__init(map, type, start, start + len, pgoff, dso); >> > >> >> > map->start = addr; >> >> > map->end = end; >> > >> >> > Consequently, the actual address range is ]start; end[ >> >> > map->end is the first byte outside the range. This patch >> >> > fixes two bugs where upper bound checking was off-by-one. >> > >> >> > In V2, we fix map_groups__fixup_overlappings() some more >> >> > where map->start was off-by-one as reported by Jiri. >> > >> >> It seems we also need to fix maps__find(): >> > >> >> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/map.c b/tools/perf/util/map.c >> >> index b7090596ac50..107a8c90785b 100644 >> >> --- a/tools/perf/util/map.c >> >> +++ b/tools/perf/util/map.c >> >> @@ -752,7 +752,7 @@ struct map *maps__find(struct rb_root *maps, u64 ip) >> >> m = rb_entry(parent, struct map, rb_node); >> >> if (ip < m->start) >> >> p = &(*p)->rb_left; >> >> - else if (ip > m->end) >> >> + else if (ip >= m->end) >> >> p = &(*p)->rb_right; >> >> else >> >> return m; >> > >> > I keep thinking that this change is making things unclear. >> > >> > I.e. the _start_ of a map (map->start) is _in_ the map, and the _end_ >> > of a map (map->end) is _in_ the map as well. >> > >> > if (addr > m->end) >> > >> > is shorter than: >> > >> > if (addr >= m->end) >> > >> > "start" and "end" should have the same rule applied, i.e. if one is in, >> > the other is in as well. >> > >> It is okay but then we need to be consistent all across. This is not >> the case today. >> I mentioned the cases I ran into. > > Ok, and provided a patch doing the way I thought was confusing, now its > my turn to use that info and come up with a patch, ok, will do that. > You got it! ;->
| |