[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGXu5j+xX3kDDS_sPY44hPVb=8isMX-evYzPx3ur=rge1rL5JQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2018 13:20:14 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@....com>,
Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
Cc: David Windsor <dave@...lcore.net>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.com>,
Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: usercopy whitelist woe in scsi_sense_cache
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 1:03 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> The above bfq_dispatch_request+0x99/0xad0 is still
> __bfq_dispatch_request at block/bfq-iosched.c:3902, just with KASAN
> removed. 0x99 is 153 decimal:
>
> (gdb) disass bfq_dispatch_request
> Dump of assembler code for function bfq_dispatch_request:
> ...
> 0xffffffff8134b2ad <+141>: test %rax,%rax
> 0xffffffff8134b2b0 <+144>: je 0xffffffff8134b2bd
> <bfq_dispatch_request+157>
> 0xffffffff8134b2b2 <+146>: addl $0x1,0x100(%rax)
> 0xffffffff8134b2b9 <+153>: addl $0x1,0x3c(%rbx)
> 0xffffffff8134b2bd <+157>: orl $0x2,0x18(%r12)
> 0xffffffff8134b2c3 <+163>: test %ebp,%ebp
> 0xffffffff8134b2c5 <+165>: je 0xffffffff8134b2ce
> <bfq_dispatch_request+174>
> 0xffffffff8134b2c7 <+167>: mov 0x108(%r14),%rax
> 0xffffffff8134b2ce <+174>: mov %r15,%rdi
> 0xffffffff8134b2d1 <+177>: callq 0xffffffff81706f90 <_raw_spin_unlock_irq>
>
> Just as a sanity-check, at +157 %r12 should be rq, rq_flags is 0x18
> offset from, $0x2 is RQF_STARTED, so that maps to "rq->rq_flags |=
> RQF_STARTED", the next C statement. I don't know what +146 is, though?
> An increment of something 256 bytes offset? There's a lot of inline
> fun and reordering happening here, so I'm ignoring that for the
> moment.
No -- I'm reading this wrong. The RIP is the IP _after_ the trap, so
+146 is the offender.
[ 29.284746] watchpoint @ ffff95d41a0fe580 triggered
[ 29.285349] sense before:ffff95d41f45f700 after:ffff95d41f45f701 (@ffff95d41a
0fe580)
[ 29.286176] elevator before:ffff95d419419c00 after:ffff95d419419c00
[ 29.286847] elevator_data before:ffff95d419418c00 after:ffff95d419418c00
...
[ 29.295069] RIP: 0010:bfq_dispatch_request+0x99/0xbb0
[ 29.295622] RSP: 0018:ffffb26e01707a40 EFLAGS: 00000002
[ 29.296181] RAX: ffff95d41a0fe480 RBX: ffff95d419418c00 RCX: ffff95d419418c08
RAX is ffff95d41a0fe480 and sense is stored at ffff95d41a0fe580,
exactly 0x100 away.
WTF is this addl?
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
Powered by blists - more mailing lists