| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 10:45:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dave Anderson <anderson@...hat.com>
To: Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Subject: Re: BUG: /proc/kcore does not export direct-mapped memory on arm64
(and presumably some other architectures)
----- Original Message -----
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > On 04/26/2018 02:16 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Dave Anderson <anderson@...hat.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> While testing /proc/kcore as the live memory source for the crash
> > >> utility,
> > >> it fails on arm64. The failure on arm64 occurs because only the
> > >> vmalloc/module space segments are exported in PT_LOAD segments,
> > >> and it's missing all of the PT_LOAD segments for the generic
> > >> unity-mapped regions of physical memory, as well as their associated
> > >> vmemmap sections.
> > >>
> > >> The mapping of unity-mapped RAM segments in fs/proc/kcore.c is
> > >> architecture-neutral, and after debugging it, I found this as the
> > >> problem. For each chunk of physical memory, kcore_update_ram()
> > >> calls walk_system_ram_range(), passing kclist_add_private() as a
> > >> callback function to add the chunk to the kclist, and eventually
> > >> leading to the creation of a PT_LOAD segment.
> > >>
> > >> kclist_add_private() does some verification of the memory region,
> > >> but this one below is bogus for arm64:
> > >>
> > >> static int
> > >> kclist_add_private(unsigned long pfn, unsigned long nr_pages, void
> > >> *arg)
> > >> {
> > >> ... [ cut ] ...
> > >> ent->addr = (unsigned long)__va((pfn << PAGE_SHIFT));
> > >> ... [ cut ] ...
> > >>
> > >> /* Sanity check: Can happen in 32bit arch...maybe */
> > >> if (ent->addr < (unsigned long) __va(0))
> > >> goto free_out;
> > >>
> > >> And that's because __va(0) is a bogus check for arm64. It is checking
> > >> whether the ent->addr value is less than the lowest possible
> > >> unity-mapped
> > >> address. But "0" should not be used as a physical address on arm64; the
> > >> lowest legitimate physical address for this __va() check would be the
> > >> arm64
> > >> PHYS_OFFSET, or memstart_addr:
> > >>
> > >> Here's the arm64 __va() and PHYS_OFFSET:
> > >>
> > >> #define __va(x) ((void *)__phys_to_virt((phys_addr_t)(x)))
> > >> #define __phys_to_virt(x) ((unsigned long)((x) - PHYS_OFFSET) |
> > >> PAGE_OFFSET)
> > >>
> > >> extern s64 memstart_addr;
> > >> /* PHYS_OFFSET - the physical address of the start of memory. */
> > >> #define PHYS_OFFSET ({ VM_BUG_ON(memstart_addr & 1);
> > >> memstart_addr; })
> > >>
> > >> If PHYS_OFFSET/memstart_addr is anything other than 0 (it is
> > >> 0x4000000000
> > >> on my
> > >> test system), the __va(0) calculation goes negative and creates a bogus,
> > >> very
> > >> large, virtual address. And since the ent->addr virtual address is less
> > >> than
> > >> bogus __va(0) address, the test fails, and the memory chunk is rejected.
> > >>
> > >> Looking at the kernel sources, it seems that this would affect other
> > >> architectures as well, i.e., the ones whose __va() is not a simple
> > >> addition of the physical address with PAGE_OFFSET.
> > >>
> > >> Anyway, I don't know what the best approach for an architecture-neutral
> > >> fix would be in this case. So I figured I'd throw it out to you guys
> > >> for
> > >> some ideas.
> > >
> > > I'm not as familiar with this code, but I've added Ard and Laura to CC
> > > here, as this feels like something they'd be able to comment on. :)
> > >
> > > -Kees
> > >
> >
> > It seems backwards that we're converting a physical address to
> > a virtual address and then validating that. I think checking against
> > pfn_valid (to ensure there is a valid memmap entry)
> > and then checking page_to_virt against virt_addr_valid to catch
> > other cases (e.g. highmem or holes in the space) seems cleaner.
>
> Hi Laura,
>
> Thanks a lot for looking into this -- I couldn't find a maintainer for kcore.
>
> The patch looks good to me, as long as virt_addr_valid() will fail on 32-bit
> arches when page_to_virt() creates an invalid address when it gets passed a
> highmem-physical address.
>
> Thanks again,
> Dave
Laura,
Tested OK on x86_64, s390x, ppc64le and arm64. Note that the patch below
had a cut-and-paste error -- the patch I used is attached.
Thanks,
Dave
>
>
> > Maybe something like:
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/proc/kcore.c b/fs/proc/kcore.c
> > index d1e82761de81..e64ecb9f2720 100644
> > --- a/fs/proc/kcore.c
> > +++ b/fs/proc/kcore.c
> > @@ -209,25 +209,34 @@ kclist_add_private(unsigned long pfn, unsigned long
> > nr_pages, void *arg)
> > {
> > struct list_head *head = (struct list_head *)arg;
> > struct kcore_list *ent;
> > + struct page *p;
> > +
> > + if (!pfn_valid(pfn))
> > + return 1;
> > +
> > + p = pfn_to_page(pfn);
> > + if (!memmap_valid_within(pfn, p, page_zone(p)))
> > + return 1;
> >
> > ent = kmalloc(sizeof(*ent), GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (!ent)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> > - ent->addr = (unsigned long)__va((pfn << PAGE_SHIFT));
> > + ent->addr = (unsigned long)page_to_virt(p);
> > ent->size = nr_pages << PAGE_SHIFT;
> >
> > - /* Sanity check: Can happen in 32bit arch...maybe */
> > - if (ent->addr < (unsigned long) __va(0))
> > + if (!virt_addr_valid(ent->addr))
> > goto free_out;
> >
> > /* cut not-mapped area. ....from ppc-32 code. */
> > if (ULONG_MAX - ent->addr < ent->size)
> > ent->size = ULONG_MAX - ent->addr;
> >
> > - /* cut when vmalloc() area is higher than direct-map area */
> > - if (VMALLOC_START > (unsigned long)__va(0)) {
> > - if (ent->addr > VMALLOC_START)
> > - goto free_out;
> > + /*
> > + * We've already checked virt_addr_valid so we know this address
> > + * is a valid pointer, therefore we can check against it to determine
> > + * if we need to trim
> > + */
> > + if (VMALLOC_START > ent->addr) {
> > if (VMALLOC_START - ent->addr < ent->size)
> > ent->size = VMALLOC_START - ent->addr;
> > }
> >
> >
>
View attachment "linux-kernel-test.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (1520 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists