linux-kernel - Re: [BUG][-tip] kprobes on module functions hits kernel BUG in text

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 04 Apr 2009 15:04:06 -0400
From:	Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC:	Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	systemtap-ml <systemtap@...rces.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG][-tip] kprobes on module functions hits kernel BUG in 	text_poke
  on x86-32

Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> * Masami Hiramatsu (mhiramat@...hat.com) wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I found text_poke() problem on x86-32 with the latest-tip tree.
>>> When I put a kprobe on a module function, text_poke() hit a BUG.
>>>
>>> This bug can be reproduced on x86-32, but not on x86-64.
>>> And inserting kprobes on a kernel-core function is OK.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>> Hi Masami,
>>
>> OK, so text_poke safety net saves the day :)
>>
>> Basically, what we have here is the BUG_ON I have put :
>>
>>        for (i = 0; i < len; i++)
>>                 BUG_ON(((char *)addr)[i] != ((char *)opcode)[i]);
>>
>> Which checks that the modification is really preceivable in the kernel
>> code, triggers this bug. Only for modules you say.
>>
>> It might not be this, but.. let's try something simple (this could be
>> completely unrelated, but won't take long to test): can you try to add a
>> vmalloc_sync_all() at the beginning of text_poke ? This would make sure
>> that lazily-populated TLB entries, which include module code and data on
>> x86, will be populated. I wonder if we hit this problem because
>> vmalloc_to_page would be returning a mapping to a yet unpopulated TLB
>> entry, if it is ever possible.
> 
> Hmm, from the result of my test, vmalloc_sync_all() didn't change anything...
> 
>> If that's not this, then I guess we have some problem with setting a
>> fixmap to a page returned by vmalloc on x86 32.
> 
> I investigate it a bit deeper. I compared fixmap's page* and original
> which vmalloc_to_page returns(because vmalloc_to_page just decode
> current pagetable).
> 
> I added a printk right after set_fixmap, which shows below message.
> 
> fixmap:<fixmap's vaddr>:<page* by vmalloc_to_page>, \
> orig:<original vaddr>:<page* passed to fixmap>
> 
> When I probe a module address, I got this;
> fixmap:ffc58000:c1db1ae4, orig:f84a1000:c59b1ae4
> 
> on the other hand, when probing a kernel addrees, I got this;
> fixmap:ffc58000:c129e01c, orig:c048946a:c129e01c
> 
> I guess this means that set_fixmap didn't set a correct page or
> page_to_phys() returned incorrect phys address.

Oops, I found a funny truth,

fixmap:ffc58000:c1db1670, orig:f83fb000:c59b1670
orig page c59b1670, phys 12f8a4000
fixmap page c1db1670, phys 2f8a4000

page means (struct page *) value, and phys means
its physical address.

You can see set_fixmap() cuts higher bits than 32 bit in fixmap.h

----
void native_set_fixmap(enum fixed_addresses idx,
                       unsigned long phys, pgprot_t flags);

#ifndef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
static inline void __set_fixmap(enum fixed_addresses idx,
                                unsigned long phys, pgprot_t flags)
{
        native_set_fixmap(idx, phys, flags);
}
#endif
---

in x86-64, unsigned long is 64bit, so it can handle highmem. So,
this problem never happens on x86-64.

Ingo, would you think we can expand phys to unsigned long long or
somesush in fixmap.h?

Thank you,

-- 
Masami Hiramatsu

Software Engineer
Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc.
Software Solutions Division

e-mail: mhiramat@...hat.com

--
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/