| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20150406112419.GB4078@pd.tnic>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 13:24:19 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Hang on large copy_from_user with PREEMPT_NONE
On Sun, Apr 05, 2015 at 11:59:52PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm seeing an interesting hang when trinity is trying to load a large module, where
> the size passed by userspace is larger than the amount of memory actually allocated
> in userspace and passed in the 'from' parameter:
>
> [ 1549.080032] NMI watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#11 stuck for 22s! [trinity-c11:12699]
> [ 1549.080032] Modules linked in:
> [ 1549.080032] hardirqs last enabled at (4202427): restore_args (arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S:750)
> [ 1549.080032] hardirqs last disabled at (4202428): apic_timer_interrupt (arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S:890)
> [ 1549.080032] softirqs last enabled at (4202426): __do_softirq (./arch/x86/include/asm/preempt.h:22 kernel/softirq.c:300)
> [ 1549.080032] softirqs last disabled at (4202421): irq_exit (kernel/softirq.c:350 kernel/softirq.c:391)
> [ 1549.080032] CPU: 11 PID: 12699 Comm: trinity-c11 Not tainted 4.0.0-rc6-next-20150402-sasha-00039-ge0bdae3-dirty #2125
> [ 1549.080032] task: ffff880260f30000 ti: ffff88025ebe8000 task.ti: ffff88025ebe8000
> [ 1549.080032] RIP: copy_user_handle_tail (arch/x86/lib/usercopy_64.c:85)
> [ 1549.080032] RSP: 0000:ffff88025ebefe38 EFLAGS: 00010202
> [ 1549.080032] RAX: 00000000356cb494 RBX: 1ffff1004bd7dfcb RCX: 0000000000000000
Wow, that's some serious len in %rax. Almost a gigabyte AFAICT.
> [ 1549.080032] RDX: 000000009277d652 RSI: ffffc90078bba001 RDI: ffffc90078bba000
Btw, what's happening to that user pointer in %rdi, is it kosher?
RSI: ffffc90078bba001
RDI: ffffc90078bba000
Hohumm, @from and @to overlap by a byte... Interesting...
> [ 1549.080032] RBP: ffff88025ebefe38 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000002f75001
> [ 1549.080032] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffff88025ebefe78
> [ 1549.080032] R13: ffff88025ebeff18 R14: 0000000094949494 R15: 0000000000da91be
> [ 1549.080032] FS: 00007f1f669df700(0000) GS:ffff8803f2800000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> [ 1549.080032] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 000000008005003b
> [ 1549.080032] CR2: 0000000002f75000 CR3: 000000025d031000 CR4: 00000000000007a0
> [ 1549.080032] Stack:
> [ 1549.080032] ffff88025ebeff48 ffffffff963c5ef0 ffffc9001993c000 0000000000da91be
> [ 1549.080032] 0000000041b58ab3 ffffffffa32918f3 ffffffff963c5da0 0000000000000286
> [ 1549.080032] ffffc9001993c000 0000000094949494 0000000000000000 0000000000000000
> [ 1549.080032] Call Trace:
> [ 1549.080032] SyS_init_module (kernel/module.c:2505 kernel/module.c:3401 kernel/module.c:3388)
> [ 1549.080032] ? load_module (kernel/module.c:3388)
> [ 1549.080032] ia32_do_call (arch/x86/ia32/ia32entry.S:501)
> [ 1549.080032] Code: d0 66 66 90 8a 06 66 66 90 45 85 c0 74 d3 85 c9 74 23 89 d0 45 31 c0 eb 08 83 e8 01 48 89 f7 74 14 48 8d 77 01 44 89 c1 66 66 90 <c6> 07 00 66 66 90 85 c9 74 e4 89 d0 66 66 90 5d c3 0f 1f 44 00
> All code
> ========
> 0: d0 66 66 shlb 0x66(%rsi)
> 3: 90 nop
> 4: 8a 06 mov (%rsi),%al
> 6: 66 66 90 data32 xchg %ax,%ax
> 9: 45 85 c0 test %r8d,%r8d
> c: 74 d3 je 0xffffffffffffffe1
> e: 85 c9 test %ecx,%ecx
> 10: 74 23 je 0x35
> 12: 89 d0 mov %edx,%eax
> 14: 45 31 c0 xor %r8d,%r8d
> 17: eb 08 jmp 0x21
> 19: 83 e8 01 sub $0x1,%eax
> 1c: 48 89 f7 mov %rsi,%rdi
> 1f: 74 14 je 0x35
> 21: 48 8d 77 01 lea 0x1(%rdi),%rsi
> 25: 44 89 c1 mov %r8d,%ecx
> 28: 66 66 90 data32 xchg %ax,%ax
> 2b:* c6 07 00 movb $0x0,(%rdi) <-- trapping instruction
> 2e: 66 66 90 data32 xchg %ax,%ax
> 31: 85 c9 test %ecx,%ecx
> 33: 74 e4 je 0x19
> 35: 89 d0 mov %edx,%eax
> 37: 66 66 90 data32 xchg %ax,%ax
> 3a: 5d pop %rbp
> 3b: c3 retq
> 3c: 0f 1f 44 00 00 nopl 0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
Hmm, lotsa alternatives patching around that area even though I can't
see anything wrong from looking at your dump. The "66 66 90" nops are
the STAC/CLAC things optimized to NOPs which are asm volatile within the
__put_user_asm()'s own asm volatile. And I thought the labels might be
fudged but my usercopy_64.s version here looks ok.
Can you boot that box with "debug-alternative" and send me dmesg? Also,
vmlinux too please. Privately's fine too.
>
> Code starting with the faulting instruction
> ===========================================
> 0: c6 07 00 movb $0x0,(%rdi)
> 3: 66 66 90 data32 xchg %ax,%ax
> 6: 85 c9 test %ecx,%ecx
> 8: 74 e4 je 0xffffffffffffffee
> a: 89 d0 mov %edx,%eax
> c: 66 66 90 data32 xchg %ax,%ax
> f: 5d pop %rbp
> 10: c3 retq
> 11: 0f 1f 44 00 00 nopl 0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
>
>
> This is the result of getting copy_user_handle_tail to zero out a large block of
> kernel memory very inefficiently:
>
> for (c = 0, zero_len = len; zerorest && zero_len; --zero_len)
Btw, that zerorest is being tested on every loop iteration! AFAICT,
if (!zerorest) {
clac();
return len;
}
before the loop should be nicer. Or am I missing something?
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
--
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