linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kexec: fix out of the ELF headers buffer issue in syscall kexec_file

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, 28 Sep 2015 17:39:45 +0800
From:	joeyli <jlee@...e.com>
To:	Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
Cc:	"Lee, Chun-Yi" <joeyli.kernel@...il.com>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kexec: fix out of the ELF headers buffer issue in
 syscall kexec_file_load()

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 04:07:57PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 09/28/15 at 02:41pm, Lee, Chun-Yi wrote:
> > On big machines have CPU number that's very nearly to consume whole ELF
> > headers buffer that's page aligned, 4096, 8192... Then the page fault error
> > randomly happened.
> > 
> > This patch modified the code in fill_up_crash_elf_data() by using
> > walk_system_ram_res() instead of walk_system_ram_range() to count the max
> > number of crash memory ranges. That's because the walk_system_ram_range()
> > filters out small memory regions that reside the same page, but
> > walk_system_ram_res() does not.
> > 
> > The oringial page fault issue sometimes happened on big machines when
> > preparing ELF headers:
> > 
> > [  305.291522] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at ffffc90613fc9000
> > [  305.299621] IP: [<ffffffff8103d645>] prepare_elf64_ram_headers_callback+0x165/0x260
> > [  305.308300] PGD e000032067 PUD 6dcbec54067 PMD 9dc9bdeb067 PTE 0
> > [  305.315393] Oops: 0002 [#1] SMP
> > [...snip]
> > [  305.420953] task: ffff8e1c01ced600 ti: ffff8e1c03ec2000 task.ti: ffff8e1c03ec2000
> > [  305.429292] RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff8103d645>]  [<ffffffff8103d645>] prepare_elf64_ra
> > m_headers_callback+0x165/0x260
> > [...snip]
> > 
> > After tracing prepare_elf64_headers() and prepare_elf64_ram_headers_callback(),
> > the code uses walk_system_ram_res() to fill-in crash memory regions information
> > to program header, so it counts those small memory regions that reside in a
> > page area. But, when kernel was using walk_system_ram_range() in
> > fill_up_crash_elf_data() to count the number of crash memory regions, it
> > filters out small regions.
> > 
> > I printed those small memory regions, for example:
> > 
> > kexec: Get nr_ram ranges. vaddr=0xffff880077592258 paddr=0x77592258, sz=0xdc0
> > 
> > Base on the logic of walk_system_ram_range(), this memory region will be
> > filter out:
> > 
> > pfn = (0x77592258 + 0x1000 - 1) >> 12 = 0x77593
> > end_pfn = (0x77592258 + 0xfc0 -1 + 1) >> 12 = 0x77593
> > end_pfn - pfn = 0x77593 - 0x77593 = 0  <=== if (end_pfn > pfn)      [FAIL]
> > 
> > So, the max_nr_ranges that counted by kernel doesn't include small memory
> > regions. That causes the page fault issue happened in later code path for
> > preparing EFL headers,
> > 
> > This issue was hided on small machine that doesn't have too many CPU because
> > the free space of ELF headers buffer can cover the number of small memory
> > regions. But, when the machine has more CPUs or the number of memory regions
> > very nearly to consume whole page aligned buffer, e.g. 4096, 8192... Then
> > issue will happen randomly.
> 
> CC akpm too.
> 
> Read code again and I think it makes sense to use walk_system_ram_res.
> And in prepare_elf64_headers it also uses walk_system_ram_res. That's
> why you can find this bug. Otherwise we never find this and those small
> regions which only spread in one page will be lost in vmcore.
> 
> Besides could you please rearrange your patch log? It's not easy to get
> what this patch have done.
>

To avoid confusing, I will simplify the patch description.
Removing things about CPU number but keep the difference between
walk_system_ram_res and walk_system_ram_range.


Thanks a lot!
Joey Lee
 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Lee, Chun-Yi <jlee@...e.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/kernel/crash.c | 5 ++---
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/crash.c b/arch/x86/kernel/crash.c
> > index e068d66..ad273b3d 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/crash.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/crash.c
> > @@ -185,8 +185,7 @@ void native_machine_crash_shutdown(struct pt_regs *regs)
> >  }
> >  
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_KEXEC_FILE
> > -static int get_nr_ram_ranges_callback(unsigned long start_pfn,
> > -				unsigned long nr_pfn, void *arg)
> > +static int get_nr_ram_ranges_callback(u64 start, u64 end, void *arg)
> >  {
> >  	int *nr_ranges = arg;
> >  
> > @@ -214,7 +213,7 @@ static void fill_up_crash_elf_data(struct crash_elf_data *ced,
> >  
> >  	ced->image = image;
> >  
> > -	walk_system_ram_range(0, -1, &nr_ranges,
> > +	walk_system_ram_res(0, -1, &nr_ranges,
> >  				get_nr_ram_ranges_callback);
> >  
> >  	ced->max_nr_ranges = nr_ranges;
> > -- 
> > 2.1.4
> > 
--
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/