linux-kernel - Re: printk badness with VMAP

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]

Message-ID: <CA+55aFz0CvCq2pU=WwZM98S0+HoUZUcgD8o8GG6qdC-oDX7TpA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 Oct 2016 16:34:35 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: printk badness with VMAP_STACK

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> I was playing around with overflowing stacks and I managed to generate a
> test
> case that hung the kernel with vmapped stacks. The test case is just
>
> static void noinline foo1(void)
> {
>        pr_info("%p\n", (void *)current_stack_pointer());
>        foo2();
> }
>
> where foo$n is the same function with the name changed. I'm super
> creative. I have a couple thousand of these for testing with the final
> one doing a WARN. The kernel eventually hangs in printk on logbuf_lock

So just to get this right - your test-case is intentionally doing that
mutually recursive thing with foo1/foo2 calling each other until they
run out of stack?

And yes, occasionally the stack will run out while in the middle of
"printk()", and then when we take a fault, we'll be screwed.

Note that we do *not* guarantee that "printk()" works in all contexts,
so it might not really be considered a bug. It's very much a "best
effort", but the scheduler and timekeeping, for example, uses
"printk_deferred()" exactly because one of the contexts where printk()
does *not* work is when you hold the rq lock.

And the reason for *that* is that printk() ends up relying on a few
different locks:

 - logbuf_lock, obviously.
 - console_sem for actual output
 - cond_resched() requires rq->lock

And we do have some hacks on place - the recursive printk test
(logbuf_cpu, as you note) and oops_in_progress and that "zap_locks()".

But zap_locks only zaps logbuf_lock and console_sem, for example.

If you run out of stack somewhere in the middle of the scheduler when
the "cond_resched()" case of printk triggers, and we hold "rq->lock"
when the double fault occurs, the machine *will* be dead. It will
still try to print things out (thanks to that zap_locks thing), but
rq->lock will be wrong, and nothing will ever recover.

And it _sounds_ like that's the case you hit.

Basically, zap_locks and the other printk "try to at least print
things out" can only handle so much.

             Linus