linux-kernel - Re: Possible regression in "slab, slub: skip unnecessary kasan_cache

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: <CACT4Y+YLySJMfG4kCJ2FiPpPtN6sgU6k2FoZUYMFrJGLj+vDjw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 Jun 2018 06:55:30 +0200
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Possible regression in "slab, slub: skip unnecessary kasan_cache_shutdown()"

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 6:08 AM, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 5:59 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com> wrote:
>> Hi Jason, yes please do send me the test suite with the kernel config.
>
> $ git clone https://git.zx2c4.com/WireGuard
> $ cd WireGuard/src
> $ [[ $(gcc -v 2>&1) =~ gcc\ version\ 8\.1\.0 ]] || echo crash needs 8.1
> $ export DEBUG_KERNEL=yes
> $ export KERNEL_VERSION=4.18-rc1
> $ make test-qemu -j$(nproc)
>
> This will build a kernel and a minimal userland and load it in qemu,
> which must be installed.
>
> This code is what causes the crash:
> The self test that's executed:
> https://git.zx2c4.com/WireGuard/tree/src/selftest/ratelimiter.h
> Which exercises this code:
> https://git.zx2c4.com/WireGuard/tree/src/ratelimiter.c
>
> The problem occurs after gc_entries(NULL) frees things (line 124 in
> ratelimiter.h above), and then line 133 reallocates those objects.
> Sometime after that happens, elsewhere in the kernel invokes this
> kasan issue in the kasan cache cleanup.
>
> I realize it's disappointing that the test case here is in WireGuard,
> which isn't (yet!) upstream. That's why in my original message I
> wrote:
>
>> Rather, it looks like this
>> commit introduces a performance optimization, rather than a
>> correctness fix, so it seems that whatever test case is failing is
>> likely an incorrect failure. Does that seem like an accurate
>> possibility to you?
>
> I was hoping to only point you toward my own code after establishing
> the possibility that the bug is not my own. If you still think there's
> a chance this is due to my own correctness issue, and your commit has
> simply unearthed it, let me know and I'll happily keep debugging on my
> own before pinging you further.


Hi Jason,

Your code frees all entries before freeing the cache, right? If you
add total_entries check before freeing the cache, it does not fire,
right?
Are you using SLAB or SLUB? We stress kernel pretty heavily, but with
SLAB, and I suspect Shakeel may also be using SLAB. So if you are
using SLUB, there is significant chance that it's a bug in the SLUB
part of the change.