Re: [perf] yet another 32/64-bit range check failure

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 01:07:34AM -0400, Vince Weaver wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2014, Vince Weaver wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 23 Apr 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > 
> > > Something like so should do I suppose.
> > > 
> > > ---
> > > Subject: perf: Fix perf_event_open(.flags) test
> > > 
> > > Vince noticed that we test the (unsigned long) flags field against an
> > > (unsigned int) constant. This would allow setting the high bits on 64bit
> > > platforms and not get an error.
> > > 
> > > There is nothing that uses the high bits, so it should be entirely
> > > harmless, but we don't want userspace to accidentally set them anyway,
> > > so fix the constants.
> > > 
> > > Reported-by: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Tested-by: Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@xxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > Your patch fixes the problem, or at least the test I wrote to check the 
> > issue now fails properly.
> 
> Even though this isn't as pressing an issue as the other perf_event 
> problems, I wanted to make sure this patch didn't get forgotten...

Thanks for reminding me, got it queued now.

Attachment: pgpWzwU0ch5gR.pgp
Description: PGP signature