linux-kernel - Re: [net/bpf] 3051bf36c2 BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at 0000a7cf

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: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1703091248410.3521@nanos>
Date:   Thu, 9 Mar 2017 14:09:00 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, LKP <lkp@...org>,
        ast@...com, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [net/bpf] 3051bf36c2 BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request
 at 0000a7cf

On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Adding x86 people too, since this seems to be something off about
> ARCH_HAS_SET_MEMORY for x86-32.
> 
> The code seems to be shared between x86-32 and 64, I'm not seeing why
> set_memory_r[ow]() should fail on one but not the other.

Indeed.

> Considering that it seems to be flaky even on 32-bit, maybe it's
> timing-related, or possibly related to TLB sizes or whatever (ie more
> likely hidden by a larger TLB on more modern hardware?)

The only difference I can see is the way how __tlb_flush_all() is
happening. We have 3 variants:

   invpcid_flush_all()  - depends on X86_FEATURE_INVPCID and X86_FEATURE_PGE
   cr4 based flush	- depends on X86_FEATURE_PGE
   cr3 based flush

No idea which variant is used in that failure case.

> Anyway, just looking at change_page_attr_set_clr(), I notice that the
> page alias checking treats NX specially:
> 
>         /* No alias checking for _NX bit modifications */
>         checkalias = (pgprot_val(mask_set) | pgprot_val(mask_clr)) != _PAGE_NX;
> 
> which seems insane. Why would NX be different from other protection
> bits (like _PAGE_RW)?

The reason is that the alias mapping should never be executable at all.

Thanks,

	tglx