[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+avu_68GoQcc32zpcOpAu-Pw7m71VmuKtEkOw=vKgxi7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 10:37:00 +0200
From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Dave Martin <dave.martin@....com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Paul Lawrence <paullawrence@...gle.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-sparse@...r.kernel.org, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"open list:KERNEL BUILD + fi..." <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@...gle.com>,
Lee Smith <Lee.Smith@....com>,
Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana.Radhakrishnan@....com>,
Jacob Bramley <Jacob.Bramley@....com>,
Ruben Ayrapetyan <Ruben.Ayrapetyan@....com>,
Mark Brand <markbrand@...gle.com>,
Chintan Pandya <cpandya@...eaurora.org>,
Vishwath Mohan <vishwath@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 15/18] khwasan, arm64: add brk handler for inline instrumentation
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 7:39 PM, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 7:16 PM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 1:35 PM, Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> > +static int khwasan_handler(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int esr)
>> > +{
>> > + bool recover = esr & KHWASAN_ESR_RECOVER;
>> > + bool write = esr & KHWASAN_ESR_WRITE;
>> > + size_t size = KHWASAN_ESR_SIZE(esr);
>> > + u64 addr = regs->regs[0];
>> > + u64 pc = regs->pc;
>> > +
>> > + if (user_mode(regs))
>> > + return DBG_HOOK_ERROR;
>> > +
>> > + kasan_report(addr, size, write, pc);
>> > +
>> > + /*
>> > + * The instrumentation allows to control whether we can proceed after
>> > + * a crash was detected. This is done by passing the -recover flag to
>> > + * the compiler. Disabling recovery allows to generate more compact
>> > + * code.
>> > + *
>> > + * Unfortunately disabling recovery doesn't work for the kernel right
>> > + * now. KHWASAN reporting is disabled in some contexts (for example when
>> > + * the allocator accesses slab object metadata; same is true for KASAN;
>> > + * this is controlled by current->kasan_depth). All these accesses are
>> > + * detected by the tool, even though the reports for them are not
>> > + * printed.
>> > + *
>> > + * This is something that might be fixed at some point in the future.
>> > + */
>> > + if (!recover)
>> > + die("Oops - KHWASAN", regs, 0);
>>
>> Why die and not panic? Die seems to be much less used function, and it
>> calls panic anyway, and we call panic in kasan_report if panic_on_warn
>> is set.
>
> die() is vaguely equivalent to BUG(); die() and BUG() normally only
> terminate the current process, which may or may not leave the system
> somewhat usable, while panic() always brings down the whole system.
> AFAIK panic() shouldn't be used unless you're in some very low-level
> code where you know that trying to just kill the current process can't
> work and the entire system is broken beyond repair.
>
> If KASAN traps on some random memory access, there's a good chance
> that just killing the current process will allow at least parts of the
> system to continue. I'm not sure whether BUG() or die() is more
> appropriate here, but I think it definitely should not be a panic().
Nick, do you know if die() will be enough to catch problems on Android
phones? panic_on_warn would turn this into panic, but I guess one does
not want panic_on_warn on a canary phone.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists