Re: [Patch v2 1/4] perf/x86/intel: Clear stale ACR mask before updating new mask
"Mi, Dapeng" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.sashiko,org.kernel.vger.linux-perf-users |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 4/20/2026 11:24 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s): > - [High] Unvalidated user input in ACR setup leads to cross-user hardware state corruption and PMU DoS > -- > > commit 67dc3d7b096879ed6418f54978bf45536496156f > Author: Dapeng Mi <[email protected]> > > perf/x86/intel: Clear stale ACR mask before updating new mask > > This commit zeroes out the ACR mask (event->hw.config1) for all scheduled > events before applying a new mask. This ensures that bits from a previous > stale ACR mask do not persist and pollute the hardware state during event > rescheduling. > >> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c >> index 4768236c054bb..774ae9a4eeaf8 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c >> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c >> @@ -3334,6 +3334,12 @@ static void intel_pmu_acr_late_setup(struct cpu_hw_events *cpuc) >> struct perf_event *event, *leader; >> int i, j, idx; >> >> + /* Clear stale ACR mask first. */ >> + for (i = 0; i < cpuc->n_events; i++) { >> + event = cpuc->event_list[i]; >> + event->hw.config1 = 0; >> + } >> + > Does this new clearing loop inadvertently amplify an existing regression where > a single user can disable Auto Counter Reload for all processes on the same CPU? > > Looking further down in the same function, the code iterates over > user-controlled bits from event->attr.config2: > > arch/x86/events/intel/core.c:intel_pmu_acr_late_setup() { > ... > for_each_set_bit(idx, (unsigned long *)&event->attr.config2, X86_PMC_IDX_MAX) { > if (i + idx >= cpuc->n_events || > !is_acr_event_group(cpuc->event_list[i + idx])) > return; > __set_bit(cpuc->assign[i + idx], (unsigned long *)&event->hw.config1); > } > ... > } > > Because idx is derived from the user-controlled event->attr.config2 mask > without being validated against the actual size of the event group, a > user could provide an artificially large idx. > > The validation in intel_pmu_hw_config() only checks the weight of the mask > using hweight64(), rather than checking the actual bit indices, leaving this > exposed. Subsequent patches in the series do not fix this. > > If the computed index hits a non-ACR event or exceeds cpuc->n_events, the > loop triggers an early return. Since the newly added code zeroes out > event->hw.config1 for all scheduled events before this loop, wouldn't this > early return leave all subsequent valid ACR events with a cleared mask? > > Additionally, if the out-of-bounds idx points to another user's valid ACR > group, is_acr_event_group() returns true, and the code proceeds to update > the event->hw.config1 with the victim's hardware counter index. > > Could this also result in cross-user state corruption of event->hw.config1 > when the event overflows and cross-reloads the victim's counter? That looks a real potential issue. Current validation for the acr_mask needs to be enhanced. The acr_mask from user space should not exceeds the index bitmap of current ACR events group. Thanks. > >> for (i = 0; i < cpuc->n_events; i++) { >> leader = cpuc->event_list[i]; >> if (!is_acr_event_group(leader))