Re: [PATCH v2] perf tools: fix off-by-one error in maps

[Stephane Eranian]

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
<acme@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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! ;->
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/