[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161117140150.o6vy7bsrbjkg2nzd@treble>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 08:01:50 -0600
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Vince Weaver <vincent.weaver@...ne.edu>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
"davej@...emonkey.org.uk" <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...il.com>
Subject: Re: perf: fuzzer KASAN unwind_get_return_address
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:48:27AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> Just in case, there is currently a known KASAN false positive related
> to longjmp's on GPFs. When a syscall hits GPF stack is unwound to
> kernel entry point, this leaves a bunch of stray poisoned redzones on
> the thread stack. They later cause false stack-out-of-bounds reports.
>
> But this does not seem to be the case here. Kernel is not tainted. And
> shadow at the bottom of the reports looks sane.
>
> But if that's the case somehow, we will need to add
> kasan_unpoison_remaining_stack() call before a longjmp like we did for
> jprobe_return():
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/kasan-dev/Hzox58yZ4MU/TOdFoWMuBQAJ
I'm pretty sure this isn't a KASAN false positive. The unwinder does
actually seem to be accessing a bad area of the stack, in the middle of
a function's stack frame.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists