lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] perf_event: Fix incorrect range check on cpu number
From
Date
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 19:40 +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> It is quite legitimate for CPUs to be numbered sparsely, meaning that
> it possible for an online CPU to have a number which is greater than
> the total count of possible CPUs.
>
> Currently find_get_context() has a sanity check on the cpu number
> where it checks it against num_possible_cpus(). This test can fail
> for a legitimate cpu number if the cpu_possible_mask is sparsely
> populated.
>
> This fixes the problem by checking the CPU number against
> nr_cpumask_bits instead, since that is the appropriate check to ensure
> that the cpu number is same to pass to cpu_isset() subsequently.

Cute, do you actually have hardware that does this?

> Reported-by: Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>
> Tested-by: Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>
> Cc: stable@kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
> ---
> kernel/perf_event.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/perf_event.c b/kernel/perf_event.c
> index 6b7ddba..78551b3 100644
> --- a/kernel/perf_event.c
> +++ b/kernel/perf_event.c
> @@ -1604,7 +1604,7 @@ static struct perf_event_context *find_get_context(pid_t pid, int cpu)
> if (perf_paranoid_cpu() && !capable(CAP_SYS_ADMIN))
> return ERR_PTR(-EACCES);
>
> - if (cpu < 0 || cpu > num_possible_cpus())
> + if (cpu < 0 || cpu >= nr_cpumask_bits)
> return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>
> /*



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-15 11:33    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans