Re: [PATCH] perf report: Fix a memory corrupton issue when enabling --branch-history
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:25:31AM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote: SNIP > > From my opinion, the option '--max-stack' in perf report looks not very > > necessary. While it's just my personal opinion, need to hear from more > > people. :) > > > > Thanks > > Jin Yao > > > > > thanks, > > > jirka > > > > > > > > > --- > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/hist.c b/tools/perf/util/hist.c > > > index b6140950301e..b50b7b70dcca 100644 > > > --- a/tools/perf/util/hist.c > > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/hist.c > > > @@ -879,7 +879,7 @@ iter_prepare_cumulative_entry(struct > > > hist_entry_iter *iter, > > > * cumulated only one time to prevent entries more than 100% > > > * overhead. > > > */ > > > - he_cache = malloc(sizeof(*he_cache) * (iter->max_stack + 1)); > > > + he_cache = malloc(sizeof(*he_cache) * (callchain_cursor.nr + 1)); > > > if (he_cache == NULL) > > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > > Hi Jiri, > > I guess you will post this patch, right? yep, later today jirka
Re: [PATCH] perf report: Fix a memory corrupton issue when enabling --branch-history
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:25:31AM +0800, Jin, Yao wrote: SNIP > > From my opinion, the option '--max-stack' in perf report looks not very > > necessary. While it's just my personal opinion, need to hear from more > > people. :) > > > > Thanks > > Jin Yao > > > > > thanks, > > > jirka > > > > > > > > > --- > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/hist.c b/tools/perf/util/hist.c > > > index b6140950301e..b50b7b70dcca 100644 > > > --- a/tools/perf/util/hist.c > > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/hist.c > > > @@ -879,7 +879,7 @@ iter_prepare_cumulative_entry(struct > > > hist_entry_iter *iter, > > > * cumulated only one time to prevent entries more than 100% > > > * overhead. > > > */ > > > - he_cache = malloc(sizeof(*he_cache) * (iter->max_stack + 1)); > > > + he_cache = malloc(sizeof(*he_cache) * (callchain_cursor.nr + 1)); > > > if (he_cache == NULL) > > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > > Hi Jiri, > > I guess you will post this patch, right? yep, later today jirka
Re: [PATCH] perf report: Fix a memory corrupton issue when enabling --branch-history
On 2/13/2018 10:00 PM, Jin, Yao wrote:
On 2/13/2018 5:45 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 04:44:28PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:
Following command lines will cause perf crash.
perf record -j call -g -a
perf report --branch-history
*** Error in `perf': double free or corruption (!prev):
0x104aa040 ***
=== Backtrace: =
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x77725)[0x7f6b37254725]
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x7ff4a)[0x7f6b3725cf4a]
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(cfree+0x4c)[0x7f6b37260abc]
perf[0x51b914]
perf(hist_entry_iter__add+0x1e5)[0x51f305]
perf[0x43cf01]
perf[0x4fa3bf]
perf[0x4fa923]
perf[0x4fd396]
perf[0x4f9614]
perf(perf_session__process_events+0x89e)[0x4fc38e]
perf(cmd_report+0x15d2)[0x43f202]
perf[0x4a059f]
perf(main+0x631)[0x427b71]
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xf0)[0x7f6b371fd830]
perf(_start+0x29)[0x427d89]
The memory corruption happens at:
iter_add_next_cumulative_entry()
{
...
for (i = 0; i < iter->curr; i++) {
...
}
Whatever in iter_next_cumulative_entry() or in
iter_add_next_cumulative_entry(),
they all don't check if iter->curr exceeds the array 'he_cache[]'.
If there are too many nodes in callchain, it's possible that
iter->curr >
iter->max_stack, then memory corruption occurs.
This patch will reallocate array 'he_cache[]' in
iter_next_cumulative_entry()
if necessary (the case of too many nodes in callchain).
right, the max_stack does not say how many nodes end up in
callchain_cursor at the end.. good catch, please mention
that also in the changelog
max_stack looks only to limit the number of calls but not for other
branches.
however we know the final count from callchain_cursor itself,
the attached patch might do the same job, right?
I think the attached patch is ok.
also could we now get rid of iter->max_stack?
From my opinion, the option '--max-stack' in perf report looks not very
necessary. While it's just my personal opinion, need to hear from more
people. :)
Thanks
Jin Yao
thanks,
jirka
---
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/hist.c b/tools/perf/util/hist.c
index b6140950301e..b50b7b70dcca 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/hist.c
+++ b/tools/perf/util/hist.c
@@ -879,7 +879,7 @@ iter_prepare_cumulative_entry(struct
hist_entry_iter *iter,
* cumulated only one time to prevent entries more than 100%
* overhead.
*/
- he_cache = malloc(sizeof(*he_cache) * (iter->max_stack + 1));
+ he_cache = malloc(sizeof(*he_cache) * (callchain_cursor.nr + 1));
if (he_cache == NULL)
return -ENOMEM;
Hi Jiri,
I guess you will post this patch, right?
Thanks
Jin Yao
Re: [PATCH] perf report: Fix a memory corrupton issue when enabling --branch-history
On 2/13/2018 10:00 PM, Jin, Yao wrote:
On 2/13/2018 5:45 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 04:44:28PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:
Following command lines will cause perf crash.
perf record -j call -g -a
perf report --branch-history
*** Error in `perf': double free or corruption (!prev):
0x104aa040 ***
=== Backtrace: =
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x77725)[0x7f6b37254725]
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x7ff4a)[0x7f6b3725cf4a]
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(cfree+0x4c)[0x7f6b37260abc]
perf[0x51b914]
perf(hist_entry_iter__add+0x1e5)[0x51f305]
perf[0x43cf01]
perf[0x4fa3bf]
perf[0x4fa923]
perf[0x4fd396]
perf[0x4f9614]
perf(perf_session__process_events+0x89e)[0x4fc38e]
perf(cmd_report+0x15d2)[0x43f202]
perf[0x4a059f]
perf(main+0x631)[0x427b71]
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xf0)[0x7f6b371fd830]
perf(_start+0x29)[0x427d89]
The memory corruption happens at:
iter_add_next_cumulative_entry()
{
...
for (i = 0; i < iter->curr; i++) {
...
}
Whatever in iter_next_cumulative_entry() or in
iter_add_next_cumulative_entry(),
they all don't check if iter->curr exceeds the array 'he_cache[]'.
If there are too many nodes in callchain, it's possible that
iter->curr >
iter->max_stack, then memory corruption occurs.
This patch will reallocate array 'he_cache[]' in
iter_next_cumulative_entry()
if necessary (the case of too many nodes in callchain).
right, the max_stack does not say how many nodes end up in
callchain_cursor at the end.. good catch, please mention
that also in the changelog
max_stack looks only to limit the number of calls but not for other
branches.
however we know the final count from callchain_cursor itself,
the attached patch might do the same job, right?
I think the attached patch is ok.
also could we now get rid of iter->max_stack?
From my opinion, the option '--max-stack' in perf report looks not very
necessary. While it's just my personal opinion, need to hear from more
people. :)
Thanks
Jin Yao
thanks,
jirka
---
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/hist.c b/tools/perf/util/hist.c
index b6140950301e..b50b7b70dcca 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/hist.c
+++ b/tools/perf/util/hist.c
@@ -879,7 +879,7 @@ iter_prepare_cumulative_entry(struct
hist_entry_iter *iter,
* cumulated only one time to prevent entries more than 100%
* overhead.
*/
- he_cache = malloc(sizeof(*he_cache) * (iter->max_stack + 1));
+ he_cache = malloc(sizeof(*he_cache) * (callchain_cursor.nr + 1));
if (he_cache == NULL)
return -ENOMEM;
Hi Jiri,
I guess you will post this patch, right?
Thanks
Jin Yao
Re: [PATCH] perf report: Fix a memory corrupton issue when enabling --branch-history
On 2/13/2018 5:45 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 04:44:28PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:
Following command lines will cause perf crash.
perf record -j call -g -a
perf report --branch-history
*** Error in `perf': double free or corruption (!prev): 0x104aa040 ***
=== Backtrace: =
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x77725)[0x7f6b37254725]
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x7ff4a)[0x7f6b3725cf4a]
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(cfree+0x4c)[0x7f6b37260abc]
perf[0x51b914]
perf(hist_entry_iter__add+0x1e5)[0x51f305]
perf[0x43cf01]
perf[0x4fa3bf]
perf[0x4fa923]
perf[0x4fd396]
perf[0x4f9614]
perf(perf_session__process_events+0x89e)[0x4fc38e]
perf(cmd_report+0x15d2)[0x43f202]
perf[0x4a059f]
perf(main+0x631)[0x427b71]
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xf0)[0x7f6b371fd830]
perf(_start+0x29)[0x427d89]
The memory corruption happens at:
iter_add_next_cumulative_entry()
{
...
for (i = 0; i < iter->curr; i++) {
...
}
Whatever in iter_next_cumulative_entry() or in iter_add_next_cumulative_entry(),
they all don't check if iter->curr exceeds the array 'he_cache[]'.
If there are too many nodes in callchain, it's possible that iter->curr >
iter->max_stack, then memory corruption occurs.
This patch will reallocate array 'he_cache[]' in iter_next_cumulative_entry()
if necessary (the case of too many nodes in callchain).
right, the max_stack does not say how many nodes end up in
callchain_cursor at the end.. good catch, please mention
that also in the changelog
max_stack looks only to limit the number of calls but not for other
branches.
however we know the final count from callchain_cursor itself,
the attached patch might do the same job, right?
I think the attached patch is ok.
also could we now get rid of iter->max_stack?
From my opinion, the option '--max-stack' in perf report looks not very
necessary. While it's just my personal opinion, need to hear from more
people. :)
Thanks
Jin Yao
thanks,
jirka
---
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/hist.c b/tools/perf/util/hist.c
index b6140950301e..b50b7b70dcca 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/hist.c
+++ b/tools/perf/util/hist.c
@@ -879,7 +879,7 @@ iter_prepare_cumulative_entry(struct hist_entry_iter *iter,
* cumulated only one time to prevent entries more than 100%
* overhead.
*/
- he_cache = malloc(sizeof(*he_cache) * (iter->max_stack + 1));
+ he_cache = malloc(sizeof(*he_cache) * (callchain_cursor.nr + 1));
if (he_cache == NULL)
return -ENOMEM;
Re: [PATCH] perf report: Fix a memory corrupton issue when enabling --branch-history
On 2/13/2018 5:45 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 04:44:28PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:
Following command lines will cause perf crash.
perf record -j call -g -a
perf report --branch-history
*** Error in `perf': double free or corruption (!prev): 0x104aa040 ***
=== Backtrace: =
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x77725)[0x7f6b37254725]
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x7ff4a)[0x7f6b3725cf4a]
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(cfree+0x4c)[0x7f6b37260abc]
perf[0x51b914]
perf(hist_entry_iter__add+0x1e5)[0x51f305]
perf[0x43cf01]
perf[0x4fa3bf]
perf[0x4fa923]
perf[0x4fd396]
perf[0x4f9614]
perf(perf_session__process_events+0x89e)[0x4fc38e]
perf(cmd_report+0x15d2)[0x43f202]
perf[0x4a059f]
perf(main+0x631)[0x427b71]
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xf0)[0x7f6b371fd830]
perf(_start+0x29)[0x427d89]
The memory corruption happens at:
iter_add_next_cumulative_entry()
{
...
for (i = 0; i < iter->curr; i++) {
...
}
Whatever in iter_next_cumulative_entry() or in iter_add_next_cumulative_entry(),
they all don't check if iter->curr exceeds the array 'he_cache[]'.
If there are too many nodes in callchain, it's possible that iter->curr >
iter->max_stack, then memory corruption occurs.
This patch will reallocate array 'he_cache[]' in iter_next_cumulative_entry()
if necessary (the case of too many nodes in callchain).
right, the max_stack does not say how many nodes end up in
callchain_cursor at the end.. good catch, please mention
that also in the changelog
max_stack looks only to limit the number of calls but not for other
branches.
however we know the final count from callchain_cursor itself,
the attached patch might do the same job, right?
I think the attached patch is ok.
also could we now get rid of iter->max_stack?
From my opinion, the option '--max-stack' in perf report looks not very
necessary. While it's just my personal opinion, need to hear from more
people. :)
Thanks
Jin Yao
thanks,
jirka
---
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/hist.c b/tools/perf/util/hist.c
index b6140950301e..b50b7b70dcca 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/hist.c
+++ b/tools/perf/util/hist.c
@@ -879,7 +879,7 @@ iter_prepare_cumulative_entry(struct hist_entry_iter *iter,
* cumulated only one time to prevent entries more than 100%
* overhead.
*/
- he_cache = malloc(sizeof(*he_cache) * (iter->max_stack + 1));
+ he_cache = malloc(sizeof(*he_cache) * (callchain_cursor.nr + 1));
if (he_cache == NULL)
return -ENOMEM;
Re: [PATCH] perf report: Fix a memory corrupton issue when enabling --branch-history
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 04:44:28PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:
> Following command lines will cause perf crash.
>
> perf record -j call -g -a
> perf report --branch-history
>
> *** Error in `perf': double free or corruption (!prev): 0x104aa040 ***
> === Backtrace: =
> /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x77725)[0x7f6b37254725]
> /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x7ff4a)[0x7f6b3725cf4a]
> /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(cfree+0x4c)[0x7f6b37260abc]
> perf[0x51b914]
> perf(hist_entry_iter__add+0x1e5)[0x51f305]
> perf[0x43cf01]
> perf[0x4fa3bf]
> perf[0x4fa923]
> perf[0x4fd396]
> perf[0x4f9614]
> perf(perf_session__process_events+0x89e)[0x4fc38e]
> perf(cmd_report+0x15d2)[0x43f202]
> perf[0x4a059f]
> perf(main+0x631)[0x427b71]
> /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xf0)[0x7f6b371fd830]
> perf(_start+0x29)[0x427d89]
>
> The memory corruption happens at:
>
> iter_add_next_cumulative_entry()
> {
> ...
> for (i = 0; i < iter->curr; i++) {
> ...
> }
>
> Whatever in iter_next_cumulative_entry() or in
> iter_add_next_cumulative_entry(),
> they all don't check if iter->curr exceeds the array 'he_cache[]'.
>
> If there are too many nodes in callchain, it's possible that iter->curr >
> iter->max_stack, then memory corruption occurs.
>
> This patch will reallocate array 'he_cache[]' in iter_next_cumulative_entry()
> if necessary (the case of too many nodes in callchain).
right, the max_stack does not say how many nodes end up in
callchain_cursor at the end.. good catch, please mention
that also in the changelog
however we know the final count from callchain_cursor itself,
the attached patch might do the same job, right?
also could we now get rid of iter->max_stack?
thanks,
jirka
---
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/hist.c b/tools/perf/util/hist.c
index b6140950301e..b50b7b70dcca 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/hist.c
+++ b/tools/perf/util/hist.c
@@ -879,7 +879,7 @@ iter_prepare_cumulative_entry(struct hist_entry_iter *iter,
* cumulated only one time to prevent entries more than 100%
* overhead.
*/
- he_cache = malloc(sizeof(*he_cache) * (iter->max_stack + 1));
+ he_cache = malloc(sizeof(*he_cache) * (callchain_cursor.nr + 1));
if (he_cache == NULL)
return -ENOMEM;
Re: [PATCH] perf report: Fix a memory corrupton issue when enabling --branch-history
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 04:44:28PM +0800, Jin Yao wrote:
> Following command lines will cause perf crash.
>
> perf record -j call -g -a
> perf report --branch-history
>
> *** Error in `perf': double free or corruption (!prev): 0x104aa040 ***
> === Backtrace: =
> /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x77725)[0x7f6b37254725]
> /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x7ff4a)[0x7f6b3725cf4a]
> /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(cfree+0x4c)[0x7f6b37260abc]
> perf[0x51b914]
> perf(hist_entry_iter__add+0x1e5)[0x51f305]
> perf[0x43cf01]
> perf[0x4fa3bf]
> perf[0x4fa923]
> perf[0x4fd396]
> perf[0x4f9614]
> perf(perf_session__process_events+0x89e)[0x4fc38e]
> perf(cmd_report+0x15d2)[0x43f202]
> perf[0x4a059f]
> perf(main+0x631)[0x427b71]
> /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xf0)[0x7f6b371fd830]
> perf(_start+0x29)[0x427d89]
>
> The memory corruption happens at:
>
> iter_add_next_cumulative_entry()
> {
> ...
> for (i = 0; i < iter->curr; i++) {
> ...
> }
>
> Whatever in iter_next_cumulative_entry() or in
> iter_add_next_cumulative_entry(),
> they all don't check if iter->curr exceeds the array 'he_cache[]'.
>
> If there are too many nodes in callchain, it's possible that iter->curr >
> iter->max_stack, then memory corruption occurs.
>
> This patch will reallocate array 'he_cache[]' in iter_next_cumulative_entry()
> if necessary (the case of too many nodes in callchain).
right, the max_stack does not say how many nodes end up in
callchain_cursor at the end.. good catch, please mention
that also in the changelog
however we know the final count from callchain_cursor itself,
the attached patch might do the same job, right?
also could we now get rid of iter->max_stack?
thanks,
jirka
---
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/hist.c b/tools/perf/util/hist.c
index b6140950301e..b50b7b70dcca 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/hist.c
+++ b/tools/perf/util/hist.c
@@ -879,7 +879,7 @@ iter_prepare_cumulative_entry(struct hist_entry_iter *iter,
* cumulated only one time to prevent entries more than 100%
* overhead.
*/
- he_cache = malloc(sizeof(*he_cache) * (iter->max_stack + 1));
+ he_cache = malloc(sizeof(*he_cache) * (callchain_cursor.nr + 1));
if (he_cache == NULL)
return -ENOMEM;
[PATCH] perf report: Fix a memory corrupton issue when enabling --branch-history
Following command lines will cause perf crash.
perf record -j call -g -a
perf report --branch-history
*** Error in `perf': double free or corruption (!prev): 0x104aa040 ***
=== Backtrace: =
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x77725)[0x7f6b37254725]
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x7ff4a)[0x7f6b3725cf4a]
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(cfree+0x4c)[0x7f6b37260abc]
perf[0x51b914]
perf(hist_entry_iter__add+0x1e5)[0x51f305]
perf[0x43cf01]
perf[0x4fa3bf]
perf[0x4fa923]
perf[0x4fd396]
perf[0x4f9614]
perf(perf_session__process_events+0x89e)[0x4fc38e]
perf(cmd_report+0x15d2)[0x43f202]
perf[0x4a059f]
perf(main+0x631)[0x427b71]
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xf0)[0x7f6b371fd830]
perf(_start+0x29)[0x427d89]
The memory corruption happens at:
iter_add_next_cumulative_entry()
{
...
for (i = 0; i < iter->curr; i++) {
...
}
Whatever in iter_next_cumulative_entry() or in iter_add_next_cumulative_entry(),
they all don't check if iter->curr exceeds the array 'he_cache[]'.
If there are too many nodes in callchain, it's possible that iter->curr >
iter->max_stack, then memory corruption occurs.
This patch will reallocate array 'he_cache[]' in iter_next_cumulative_entry()
if necessary (the case of too many nodes in callchain).
Signed-off-by: Jin Yao
---
tools/perf/util/hist.c | 21 +
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/hist.c b/tools/perf/util/hist.c
index b614095..71f07d2 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/hist.c
+++ b/tools/perf/util/hist.c
@@ -926,11 +926,32 @@ iter_next_cumulative_entry(struct hist_entry_iter *iter,
struct addr_location *al)
{
struct callchain_cursor_node *node;
+ struct hist_entry **tmp;
+ int i;
node = callchain_cursor_current(_cursor);
if (node == NULL)
return 0;
+ /*
+* If there are too many nodes in callchain,
+* increase the size of he_cache[].
+*/
+ if (iter->curr == iter->max_stack) {
+ i = 2 * iter->max_stack + 1;
+ tmp = realloc(iter->priv, sizeof(struct hist_entry *) * i);
+ if (tmp == NULL) {
+ /*
+* No need to free iter->priv here. It will be
+* freed in iter_finish_cumulative_entry.
+*/
+ return 0;
+ }
+
+ iter->priv = tmp;
+ iter->max_stack = i;
+ }
+
return fill_callchain_info(al, node, iter->hide_unresolved);
}
--
2.7.4
[PATCH] perf report: Fix a memory corrupton issue when enabling --branch-history
Following command lines will cause perf crash.
perf record -j call -g -a
perf report --branch-history
*** Error in `perf': double free or corruption (!prev): 0x104aa040 ***
=== Backtrace: =
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x77725)[0x7f6b37254725]
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(+0x7ff4a)[0x7f6b3725cf4a]
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(cfree+0x4c)[0x7f6b37260abc]
perf[0x51b914]
perf(hist_entry_iter__add+0x1e5)[0x51f305]
perf[0x43cf01]
perf[0x4fa3bf]
perf[0x4fa923]
perf[0x4fd396]
perf[0x4f9614]
perf(perf_session__process_events+0x89e)[0x4fc38e]
perf(cmd_report+0x15d2)[0x43f202]
perf[0x4a059f]
perf(main+0x631)[0x427b71]
/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xf0)[0x7f6b371fd830]
perf(_start+0x29)[0x427d89]
The memory corruption happens at:
iter_add_next_cumulative_entry()
{
...
for (i = 0; i < iter->curr; i++) {
...
}
Whatever in iter_next_cumulative_entry() or in iter_add_next_cumulative_entry(),
they all don't check if iter->curr exceeds the array 'he_cache[]'.
If there are too many nodes in callchain, it's possible that iter->curr >
iter->max_stack, then memory corruption occurs.
This patch will reallocate array 'he_cache[]' in iter_next_cumulative_entry()
if necessary (the case of too many nodes in callchain).
Signed-off-by: Jin Yao
---
tools/perf/util/hist.c | 21 +
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/hist.c b/tools/perf/util/hist.c
index b614095..71f07d2 100644
--- a/tools/perf/util/hist.c
+++ b/tools/perf/util/hist.c
@@ -926,11 +926,32 @@ iter_next_cumulative_entry(struct hist_entry_iter *iter,
struct addr_location *al)
{
struct callchain_cursor_node *node;
+ struct hist_entry **tmp;
+ int i;
node = callchain_cursor_current(_cursor);
if (node == NULL)
return 0;
+ /*
+* If there are too many nodes in callchain,
+* increase the size of he_cache[].
+*/
+ if (iter->curr == iter->max_stack) {
+ i = 2 * iter->max_stack + 1;
+ tmp = realloc(iter->priv, sizeof(struct hist_entry *) * i);
+ if (tmp == NULL) {
+ /*
+* No need to free iter->priv here. It will be
+* freed in iter_finish_cumulative_entry.
+*/
+ return 0;
+ }
+
+ iter->priv = tmp;
+ iter->max_stack = i;
+ }
+
return fill_callchain_info(al, node, iter->hide_unresolved);
}
--
2.7.4
