linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND PATCH] efi: let kmemleak ignore false positives

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: <CAKv+Gu9ugNxoST=cc9utWNtoYFdPng0FgNfV-Mw0UWyJiKqOLw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 7 Dec 2018 12:28:57 +0100
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
To:     Qian Cai <cai@....us>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        linux-efi <linux-efi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] efi: let kmemleak ignore false positives

On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 at 19:05, Qian Cai <cai@....us> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2018-12-06 at 19:01 +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 at 19:00, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 11:16:33AM -0500, Qian Cai wrote:
> > > > unreferenced object 0xffff8096c1acf580 (size 128):
> > > >   comm "swapper/63", pid 0, jiffies 4294937418 (age 1201.230s)
> > > >   hex dump (first 32 bytes):
> > > >     80 87 b5 c1 96 00 00 00 00 00 cc c2 16 00 00 00  ................
> > > >     00 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b 6b  ........kkkkkkkk
> > > >   backtrace:
> > > >     [<000000001d2549ba>] kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x430/0x500
> > > >     [<0000000093a6dfab>] efi_mem_reserve_persistent+0x50/0xf8
> > > >     [<000000000a730828>] its_cpu_init_lpis+0x394/0x4b8
> > > >     [<00000000edf04e07>] its_cpu_init+0x104/0x150
> > > >     [<000000004d0342c5>] gic_starting_cpu+0x34/0x40
> > > >     [<000000005d9da772>] cpuhp_invoke_callback+0x228/0x1d68
> > > >     [<0000000061eace9b>] notify_cpu_starting+0xc0/0x118
> > > >     [<0000000048bc2dc5>] secondary_start_kernel+0x23c/0x3b0
> > > >     [<0000000015137d6a>] 0xffffffffffffffff
> > > >
> > > > efi_mem_reserve_persistent+0x50/0xf8:
> > > > kmalloc at include/linux/slab.h:546
> > > > (inlined by) efi_mem_reserve_persistent at drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c:979
> > > >
> > > > This line,
> > > >
> > > > rsv = kmalloc(sizeof(*rsv), GFP_ATOMIC);
> > > >
> > > > Kmemleak has a known limitation that can only track pointers in the kernel
> > > > virtual space. Hence, it will report false positives due to "rsv" will
> > > > only
> > > > reference to other physical addresses,
> > > >
> > > > rsv->next = efi_memreserve_root->next;
> > > > efi_memreserve_root->next = __pa(rsv);
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Qian Cai <cai@....us>
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>\
> >
> > I don't see the patch and I wasn't cc'ed
>
> That is strange. Please see,
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1543517152-23969-1-git-send-email-cai@gmx.us/

OK, I found it in my spam folder, apologies for that.

This kmalloc() will be replaced in the next merge window by a call to
__get_free_page(). Does kmemleak still require the kmemleak_ignore()
for that case? Or is it only for kmalloc()?