Re: [PATCH 05/12] perf jitdump: Check snprintf return before computing header size
Ian Rogers <[email protected]> Wed, 5 Aug 2026 12:07:23 -0700
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-perf-users,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAP-5=fXRei4AivX_RcqR4xjmLtbYuNsJALOzJMAWvy7HCU09Dg@mail.gmail.com> |
On Wed, Aug 5, 2026 at 6:31 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[email protected]> > > snprintf() returns the would-have-been length on truncation. When the > jitted filename exceeds PATH_MAX, the unclamped 'size' value inflates > sizeof(event->mmap2.filename) - size into a massive underflow, causing > the header.size computation to write an oversized header. The > subsequent write to 'id = event + header.size - idr_size' then corrupts > the heap. > > Clamp size to PATH_MAX - 1 after snprintf in both jit_repipe_code_load() > and jit_repipe_code_move(). > > Fixes: 9b07e27f88b9 ("perf inject: Add jitdump mmap injection support") > Reported-by: sashiko-bot <[email protected]> > Cc: Stephane Eranian <[email protected]> > Assisted-by: Claude:claude-opus-4.6 > Signed-off-by: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <[email protected]> > --- > tools/perf/util/jitdump.c | 6 ++++++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/jitdump.c b/tools/perf/util/jitdump.c > index 078d3304d2b7ebce..fd11e07bf00b7978 100644 > --- a/tools/perf/util/jitdump.c > +++ b/tools/perf/util/jitdump.c > @@ -493,6 +493,9 @@ static int jit_repipe_code_load(struct jit_buf_desc *jd, union jr_entry *jr) > jd->dir, > nspid, > count); > + /* snprintf returns would-be length on truncation, clamp to buffer */ > + if (size >= PATH_MAX) > + size = PATH_MAX - 1; Given the recent fixes to reading /proc/pid/maps where it was assumed the file paths would be limited to PATH_MAX and it turns out that PATH_MAX doesn't really do that and we had potential buffer overruns during synthesis, I wonder it would be more intention revealing here to use "sizeof(event->mmap2.filename)" rather than PATH_MAX. Other than the constant used, I agree with the change and using PATH_MAX isn't wrong. Reviewed-by: Ian Rogers <[email protected]> Thanks, Ian > > size++; /* for \0 */ > > @@ -623,6 +626,9 @@ static int jit_repipe_code_move(struct jit_buf_desc *jd, union jr_entry *jr) > jd->dir, > nspid, > jr->move.code_index); > + /* snprintf returns would-be length on truncation, clamp to buffer */ > + if (size >= PATH_MAX) > + size = PATH_MAX - 1; > > size++; /* for \0 */ > > -- > 2.55.0 >