lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 5 Jan 2009 12:16:32 -0800
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Eric Sesterhenn <snakebyte@....de>
Cc:	Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, josh@...edesktop.org,
	dipankar@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [BUG] NULL pointer deref with rcutorture

On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 09:01:45PM +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:
> hi,
> 
> * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 07:56:55PM +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:
> > > * Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> > > [   65.135468] rcu_torture_cb: d0af7d1b rcu_bh_torture_wakeme_after_cb:
> > > d0af7bec
> > > [   65.135672] rcu-torture:--- Start of test: nreaders=2 nfakewriters=4
> > > stat_interval=0 verbose=0 test_no_idle_hz=0 shuffle_interval=3 stutter=5
> > > irqreader=1
> > > [   71.171603] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at
> > > (null)
> > > [   71.171954] IP: [<d0af7a0f>] 0xd0af7a0f
> > > [   71.192822] *pde = 00000000 
> > > [   71.196513] Oops: 0002 [#1] PREEMPT DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
> > > [   71.196826] last sysfs file: /sys/block/ram9/range
> > > [   71.197010] Modules linked in: [last unloaded: rcutorture]
> > > [   71.197010] 
> > > [   71.197010] Pid: 4861, comm: rcu_torture_wri Tainted: G        W
> > > (2.6.28-05716-gfe0bdec-dirty #171) System Name
> > > [   71.197010] EIP: 0060:[<d0af7a0f>] EFLAGS: 00010282 CPU: 0
> > > [   71.197010] EIP is at 0xd0af7a0f
> > > [   71.197010] EAX: 00000000 EBX: d0afbc20 ECX: c04f5cef EDX: c98abf7c
> > > [   71.197010] ESI: d0af7df0 EDI: 00000000 EBP: c98abfc4 ESP: c98abfc4
> > > [   71.197010]  DS: 007b ES: 007b FS: 0000 GS: 0000 SS: 0068
> > > [   71.197010] Process rcu_torture_wri (pid: 4861, ti=c98ab000
> > > task=c9890d00 task.ti=c98ab000)
> > > [   71.197010] Stack:
> > > [   71.197010]  c98abfd0 d0af7eeb 00000000 c98abfe0 c0137364 c0137326
> > > 00000000 00000000
> > > [   71.197010]  c0103643 c981fea4 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
> > > 00000000
> > > [   71.197010] Call Trace:
> > > [   71.197010]  [<c0137364>] ? kthread+0x3e/0x66
> > > [   71.197010]  [<c0137326>] ? kthread+0x0/0x66
> > > [   71.197010]  [<c0103643>] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10
> > > [   71.197010] Code: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> > > 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> > > 00 00 <00> 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 
> > > [   71.197010] EIP: [<d0af7a0f>] 0xd0af7a0f SS:ESP 0068:c98abfc4
> > > [   71.301103] ---[ end trace 4eaa2a86a8e2da22 ]---
> > > 
> > > If i interpret this correctly, this corresponds to
> > > 
> > > 000009e8 <rcu_stutter_wait>:
> > >      9e8:       55                      push   %ebp
> > >      9e9:       89 e5                   mov    %esp,%ebp
> > >      9eb:       e8 fc ff ff ff          call   9ec <rcu_stutter_wait+0x4>
> > 
> > Wow!!!  Am I reading this correctly?  Does the above "call" instruction
> > -really- call one byte into itself?  That is what the hex for the x86
> > instruction -looks- like it is doing, but I cannot see what would have
> > possessed the compiler to generate this code.
> 
> Compiler is gcc version 4.2.4 (Ubuntu 4.2.4-1ubuntu3)

I am using 4.1.3, for whatever it is worth.  (Ancient, I know!)

> > When I compile on a 32-bit x86 machine, I don't see the above "call"
> > instruction.  Other than that, the code I see looks consistent.
> > 
> > >      9f0:       eb 1d                   jmp    a0f <rcu_stutter_wait+0x27>
> > >      9f2:       83 3d 00 00 00 00 00    cmpl   $0x0,0x0
> > >      9f9:       b8 01 00 00 00          mov    $0x1,%eax
> > >      9fe:       75 0a                   jne    a0a <rcu_stutter_wait+0x22>
> > >      a00:       b8 e8 03 00 00          mov    $0x3e8,%eax
> > >      a05:       e8 fc ff ff ff          call   a06 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x1e>
> > >      a0a:       e8 fc ff ff ff          call   a0b <rcu_stutter_wait+0x23>
> > >      a0f:       83 3d 6c 00 00 00 00    cmpl   $0x0,0x6c
> > > 			^---------- this line
> > 
> > This looks like the first test in the "while" loop.
> > 
> > >      a16:       75 09                   jne    a21 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x39>
> > >      a18:       83 3d 00 00 00 00 00    cmpl   $0x0,0x0
> > >      a1f:       75 09                   jne    a2a <rcu_stutter_wait+0x42>
> > >      a21:       83 3d 50 1a 00 00 00    cmpl   $0x0,0x1a50
> > >      a28:       74 c8                   je     9f2 <rcu_stutter_wait+0xa>
> > >      a2a:       5d                      pop    %ebp
> > >      a2b:       c3                      ret
> > 
> > The corresponding C code is as follows:
> > 
> > static void
> > rcu_stutter_wait(void)
> > {
> > 	while ((stutter_pause_test || !rcutorture_runnable) && !fullstop) {
> > 		if (rcutorture_runnable)
> > 			schedule_timeout_interruptible(1);
> > 		else
> > 			schedule_timeout_interruptible(round_jiffies_relative(HZ));
> > 	}
> > }
> > 
> > I don't see much opportunity for a page fault here...  This is the
> > binary I get when I compile it, though not as a module:
> > 
> > 0000085a <rcu_stutter_wait>:
> >      85a:	55                   	push   %ebp
> >      85b:	89 e5                	mov    %esp,%ebp
> >      85d:	eb 1d                	jmp    87c <rcu_stutter_wait+0x22>
> >      85f:	83 3d 00 00 00 00 00 	cmpl   $0x0,0x0
> >      866:	b8 01 00 00 00       	mov    $0x1,%eax
> >      86b:	75 0a                	jne    877 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x1d>
> >      86d:	b8 e8 03 00 00       	mov    $0x3e8,%eax
> >      872:	e8 fc ff ff ff       	call   873 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x19>
> >      877:	e8 fc ff ff ff       	call   878 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x1e>
> >      87c:	83 3d 14 00 00 00 00 	cmpl   $0x0,0x14
> >      883:	75 09                	jne    88e <rcu_stutter_wait+0x34>
> >      885:	83 3d 00 00 00 00 00 	cmpl   $0x0,0x0
> >      88c:	75 09                	jne    897 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x3d>
> >      88e:	83 3d 08 1a 00 00 00 	cmpl   $0x0,0x1a08
> >      895:	74 c8                	je     85f <rcu_stutter_wait+0x5>
> >      897:	5d                   	pop    %ebp
> >      898:	c3                   	ret    
> > 
> > I confess, I am confused!!!
> 
> on the other box with a different gcc version
> 
> gcc version 4.3.2 (Ubuntu 4.3.2-1ubuntu11) 
> 
> d1902e90 is the start of rcu_stutter_wait
> 
> [  533.391719] d087e000 d1902e90
> [  533.392294] rcu-torture:--- Start of test: nreaders=2 nfakewriters=4 stat_interval=0 verbose=0 test_no_idle_hz=0 shuffle_interval=3 stutter=5 irqreader=1
> [  541.000139] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at d1902efd
> [  541.000423] IP: [<d1902efd>] 0xd1902efd
> [  541.000660] *pde = 0f08f067 *pte = 00000000 
> [  541.000867] Oops: 0000 [#1] DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
> [  541.001126] last sysfs file: /sys/block/sda/size
> [  541.001246] Modules linked in: nfsd exportfs nfs lockd nfs_acl auth_rpcgss sunrpc ipv6 fuse unix [last unloaded: rcutorture]
> [  541.002235] 
> [  541.002334] Pid: 5292, comm: rcu_torture_wri Not tainted (2.6.28 #84) 
> [  541.002470] EIP: 0060:[<d1902efd>] EFLAGS: 00010296 CPU: 0
> [  541.002598] EIP is at 0xd1902efd
> [  541.002767] EAX: 00000000 EBX: d19073c0 ECX: 00000000 EDX: 00000000
> [  541.002900] ESI: 0000000a EDI: 00000000 EBP: c7b63fb8 ESP: c7b63fb8
> [  541.003033]  DS: 007b ES: 007b FS: 0000 GS: 0000 SS: 0068
> [  541.003160] Process rcu_torture_wri (pid: 5292, ti=c7b63000 task=c7b09710 task.ti=c7b63000)
> [  541.003400] Stack:
> [  541.003497]  c7b63fd0 d19032c1 00000000 00000000 00000000 d1903200 c7b63fe0 c013d80a
> [  541.004022]  c013d7d0 00000000 00000000 c0103cf3 cef6ee70 00000000 00000000 00000000
> [  541.004022]  00000201 000004b4
> [  541.004022] Call Trace:
> [  541.004022]  [<c013d80a>] ? kthread+0x3a/0x70
> [  541.004022]  [<c013d7d0>] ? kthread+0x0/0x70
> [  541.004022]  [<c0103cf3>] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x14
> [  541.004022] Code:  Bad EIP value.
> [  541.004022] EIP: [<d1902efd>] 0xd1902efd SS:ESP 0068:c7b63fb8
> [  541.004022] ---[ end trace cb3b10c2bb94b4e3 ]---
> 
> 
> 00000e90 <rcu_stutter_wait>:
>      e90:	55                   	push   %ebp
>      e91:	89 e5                	mov    %esp,%ebp
>      e93:	90                   	nop    
>      e94:	8d 74 26 00          	lea    0x0(%esi,%eiz,1),%esi
>      e98:	a1 98 00 00 00       	mov    0x98,%eax
>      e9d:	85 c0                	test   %eax,%eax
>      e9f:	75 09                	jne    eaa <rcu_stutter_wait+0x1a>
>      ea1:	a1 00 00 00 00       	mov    0x0,%eax
>      ea6:	85 c0                	test   %eax,%eax
>      ea8:	75 36                	jne    ee0 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x50>
>      eaa:	a1 88 1a 00 00       	mov    0x1a88,%eax
>      eaf:	85 c0                	test   %eax,%eax
>      eb1:	75 2d                	jne    ee0 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x50>
>      eb3:	8b 15 00 00 00 00    	mov    0x0,%edx
>      eb9:	85 d2                	test   %edx,%edx
>      ebb:	74 2b                	je     ee8 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x58>
>      ebd:	b8 01 00 00 00       	mov    $0x1,%eax
>      ec2:	e8 fc ff ff ff       	call   ec3 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x33>
>      ec7:	a1 98 00 00 00       	mov    0x98,%eax
>      ecc:	85 c0                	test   %eax,%eax
>      ece:	74 d1                	je     ea1 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x11>
>      ed0:	a1 88 1a 00 00       	mov    0x1a88,%eax
>      ed5:	85 c0                	test   %eax,%eax
>      ed7:	74 da                	je     eb3 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x23>
>      ed9:	8d b4 26 00 00 00 00 	lea    0x0(%esi,%eiz,1),%esi
>      ee0:	5d                   	pop    %ebp
>      ee1:	c3                   	ret    
>      ee2:	8d b6 00 00 00 00    	lea    0x0(%esi),%esi
>      ee8:	b8 fa 00 00 00       	mov    $0xfa,%eax
>      eed:	e8 fc ff ff ff       	call   eee <rcu_stutter_wait+0x5e>

Here we are again calling one byte into the current instruction!!!

Or am I misinterpreting this code?

>      ef2:	8d b6 00 00 00 00    	lea    0x0(%esi),%esi
>      ef8:	e8 fc ff ff ff       	call   ef9 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x69>
>      efd:	8d 76 00             	lea    0x0(%esi),%esi
> 			   ^------------- here
> 
> This one looks more like it can explain a page fault

I don't understand why there are indirections in the assembly given the
C code for rcu_stutter_wait().

>      f00:	eb 96                	jmp    e98 <rcu_stutter_wait+0x8>
>      f02:	8d b4 26 00 00 00 00 	lea    0x0(%esi,%eiz,1),%esi
>      f09:	8d bc 27 00 00 00 00 	lea    0x0(%edi,%eiz,1),%edi
> 
> Greetings, Eric

							Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ