[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161201145821.imkcgizo4thmiei2@treble>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 08:58:21 -0600
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org, luto@...capital.net,
Scott Bauer <scott.bauer@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/suspend: fix false positive KASAN warning on
suspend/resume
On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 12:05:34PM +0300, Andrey Ryabinin wrote:
>
>
> On 12/01/2016 02:10 AM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > Resuming from a suspend operation is showing a KASAN false positive
> > warning:
> >
>
> > KASAN instrumentation poisons the stack when entering a function and
> > unpoisons it when exiting the function. However, in the suspend path,
> > some functions never return, so their stack never gets unpoisoned,
> > resulting in stale KASAN shadow data which can cause false positive
> > warnings like the one above.
> >
> > Reported-by: Scott Bauer <scott.bauer@...el.com>
> > Tested-by: Scott Bauer <scott.bauer@...el.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/kernel/acpi/sleep.c | 3 +++
> > include/linux/kasan.h | 7 +++++++
> > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/sleep.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/sleep.c
> > index 4858733..62bd046 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/sleep.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/sleep.c
> > @@ -115,6 +115,9 @@ int x86_acpi_suspend_lowlevel(void)
> > pause_graph_tracing();
> > do_suspend_lowlevel();
> > unpause_graph_tracing();
> > +
> > + kasan_unpoison_stack_below_sp();
> > +
>
> I think this might be too late. We may hit stale poison in the first C function called
> after resume (restore_processor_state()). Thus the shadow must be unpoisoned prior such call,
> i.e. somewhere in do_suspend_lowlevel() after .Lresume_point.
Yeah, I think you're right. Will spin a v2.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists