On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 12:38 AM, Jiri Olsa <jo...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 05:32:40PM -0700, David Carrillo-Cisneros wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Jiri Olsa <jo...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 09:29:31PM -0700, David Carrillo-Cisneros wrote:
>> >
>> > SNIP
>> >
>> >>
>> >> void perf_event__print_totals(void);
>> >> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/header.c b/tools/perf/util/header.c
>> >> index ddfaf157913d..6f6a54c15cb0 100644
>> >> --- a/tools/perf/util/header.c
>> >> +++ b/tools/perf/util/header.c
>> >> @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
>> >> #include "data.h"
>> >> #include <api/fs/fs.h>
>> >> #include "asm/bug.h"
>> >> +#include "tool.h"
>> >>
>> >> #include "sane_ctype.h"
>> >>
>> >> @@ -97,11 +98,14 @@ static int __do_write_buf(struct feat_fd *ff, const
>> >> void *buf, size_t size)
>> >>
>> >> retry:
>> >> if (size > (ff->size - ff->offset)) {
>> >> - addr = realloc(ff->buf, ff->size << 1);
>> >> + size = ff->size << 1;
>> >> + if (size > page_size)
>> >
>> > event size could be 0xffff - sizeof(struct perf_event_header)
>> > also the initial size is most likely > page_size anyway
>> >
>> > please put this into the patch that introduced __do_write_buf
>> >
>>
>> Thank you for reviewing this. I just realized that I sent v5 without
>> properly addressing this issue. In v4 I tried to add a quick check
>> without properly understanding the issue. Why is 0xffff the maximum
>> size for an event? where is this constraint coming from?
>
> the struct perf_event_header::size is u16
ok, it makes sense now. I submitted v6, hopefully handling the resize properly.
