linux-kernel - Re: bio linked list corruption.

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:   Tue, 18 Oct 2016 20:19:01 -0400
From:   Chris Mason <clm@...com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>, Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>,
        linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: bio linked list corruption.

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 05:10:56PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Chris Mason <clm@...com> wrote:
>>
>> Seems to be the whole thing:
>
>Ahh. On lkml, so I do have it in my mailbox, but Dave changed the
>subject line when he tested on ext4 rather than btrfs..
>
>Anyway, the corrupted address is somewhat interesting. As Dave Jones
>said, he saw
>
>  list_add corruption. prev->next should be next (ffffe8ffff806648),
>but was ffffc9000067fcd8. (prev=ffff880503878b80).
>  list_add corruption. prev->next should be next (ffffe8ffffc05648),
>but was ffffc9000028bcd8. (prev=ffff880503a145c0).
>
>and Dave Chinner reports
>
>  list_add corruption. prev->next should be next (ffffe8ffffc02808),
>but was ffffc90005f6bda8. (prev=ffff88013363bb80).
>
>and it's worth noting that the "but was" is a remarkably consistent
>vmalloc address (the ffffc9000.. pattern gives it away). In fact, it's
>identical across two boots for DaveJ in the low 14 bits, and fairly
>high up in those low 14 bots (0x3cd8).
>
>DaveC has a different address, but it's also in the vmalloc space, and
>also looks like it is fairly high up in 14 bits (0x3da8). So in both
>cases it's almost certainly a stack address with a fairly empty stack.
>The differences are presumably due to different kernel configurations
>and/or just different filesystems calling the same function that does
>the same bad thing but now at different depths in the stack.
>
>Adding Andy to the cc, because this *might* be triggered by the
>vmalloc stack code itself. Maybe the re-use of stacks showing some
>problem? Maybe Chris (who can't see the problem) doesn't have
>CONFIG_VMAP_STACK enabled?

CONFIG_VMAP_STACK=y, but maybe I just need to hammer on process creation 
more.  I'm testing in a hugely stripped down VM, so Dave might have more 
background stuff going on.

-chris