| 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: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:54:14 +0200
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@...e.fr>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Prateek Patel <prpatel@...dia.com>,
Sachin Nikam <snikam@...dia.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...il.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Qian Cai <cai@....pw>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: kmemleak panic
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 03:12:54PM +0100, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
> On 22/01/2019 15:02, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
>
> > On 21/01/2019 18:42, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> >
> >> If I understood correctly, the trouble comes from no-map range allocated in
> >> early_init_dt_alloc_reserved_memory_arch().
> >>
> >> There's indeed imbalance, because memblock_alloc() does kmemleak_alloc(), but
> >> memblock_remove() does not do kmemleak_free().
> >>
> >> I think the best way is to replace __memblock_alloc_base() with
> >> memblock_find_in_range(), e.g something like:
> >>
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c b/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c
> >> index 1977ee0adcb1..6807a1cffe55 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c
> >> @@ -37,21 +37,16 @@ int __init __weak early_init_dt_alloc_reserved_memory_arch(phys_addr_t size,
> >> */
> >> end = !end ? MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ANYWHERE : end;
> >> align = !align ? SMP_CACHE_BYTES : align;
> >> - base = __memblock_alloc_base(size, align, end);
> >> + base = memblock_find_in_range(size, align, start, end);
> >> if (!base)
> >> return -ENOMEM;
> >>
> >> - /*
> >> - * Check if the allocated region fits in to start..end window
> >> - */
> >> - if (base < start) {
> >> - memblock_free(base, size);
> >> - return -ENOMEM;
> >> - }
> >> -
> >> *res_base = base;
> >> if (nomap)
> >> return memblock_remove(base, size);
> >> + else
> >> + return memblock_reserve(base, size);
> >> +
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >
> > Your patch solves the issue. \o/
Great :)
> [ Add nvidia devs, but drop schowdary@...dia.com ]
>
Resending it as a formal patch now, I took a liberty to add your Tested-by.
>From a847ca684db29a3c09e4dd2a8a008b35cf36e52f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:38:50 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] of: fix kmemleak crash caused by imbalance in early memory
reservation
Marc Gonzalez reported the following kmemleak crash:
Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address ffffffc021e00000
Mem abort info:
ESR = 0x96000006
Exception class = DABT (current EL), IL = 32 bits
SET = 0, FnV = 0
EA = 0, S1PTW = 0
Data abort info:
ISV = 0, ISS = 0x00000006
CM = 0, WnR = 0
swapper pgtable: 4k pages, 39-bit VAs, pgdp = (____ptrval____)
[ffffffc021e00000] pgd=000000017e3ba803, pud=000000017e3ba803,
pmd=0000000000000000
Internal error: Oops: 96000006 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
Modules linked in:
CPU: 6 PID: 523 Comm: kmemleak Tainted: G S W 5.0.0-rc1 #13
Hardware name: Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. MSM8998 v1 MTP (DT)
pstate: 80000085 (Nzcv daIf -PAN -UAO)
pc : scan_block+0x70/0x190
lr : scan_block+0x6c/0x190
sp : ffffff8012e8bd20
x29: ffffff8012e8bd20 x28: ffffffc0fdbaf018
x27: ffffffc022000000 x26: 0000000000000080
x25: ffffff8011aadf70 x24: ffffffc0f8cc8000
x23: ffffff8010dc8000 x22: ffffff8010dc8830
x21: ffffffc021e00ff9 x20: ffffffc0f8cc8050
x19: ffffffc021e00000 x18: 0000000000002409
x17: 0000000000000200 x16: 0000000000000000
x15: ffffff8010e14dd8 x14: 0000000000002406
x13: 000000004c4dd0c6 x12: ffffffc0f77dad58
x11: 0000000000000001 x10: ffffff8010d9e688
x9 : ffffff8010d9f000 x8 : ffffff8010d9e688
x7 : 0000000000000002 x6 : 0000000000000000
x5 : ffffff8011511c20 x4 : 00000000000026d1
x3 : ffffff8010e14d88 x2 : 5b36396f4e7d4000
x1 : 0000000000208040 x0 : 0000000000000000
Process kmemleak (pid: 523, stack limit = 0x(____ptrval____))
Call trace:
scan_block+0x70/0x190
scan_gray_list+0x108/0x1c0
kmemleak_scan+0x33c/0x7c0
kmemleak_scan_thread+0x98/0xf0
kthread+0x11c/0x120
ret_from_fork+0x10/0x1c
Code: f9000fb4 d503201f 97ffffd2 35000580 (f9400260)
---[ end trace 176d6ed9d86a0c33 ]---
note: kmemleak[523] exited with preempt_count 2
The crash happens when a no-map area is allocated in
early_init_dt_alloc_reserved_memory_arch(). The allocated region is
registered with kmemleak, but it is then removed from memblock using
memblock_remove() that is not kmemleak-aware.
Replacing __memblock_alloc_base() with memblock_find_in_range() makes sure
that the allocated memory is not added to kmemleak and then
memblock_remove()'ing this memory is safe.
As a bonus, since memblock_find_in_range() ensures the allocation in the
specified range, the bounds check can be removed.
Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>
Tested-by: Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@...e.fr>
---
drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c | 13 ++++---------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c b/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c
index 1977ee0adcb1..6807a1cffe55 100644
--- a/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c
+++ b/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c
@@ -37,21 +37,16 @@ int __init __weak early_init_dt_alloc_reserved_memory_arch(phys_addr_t size,
*/
end = !end ? MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ANYWHERE : end;
align = !align ? SMP_CACHE_BYTES : align;
- base = __memblock_alloc_base(size, align, end);
+ base = memblock_find_in_range(size, align, start, end);
if (!base)
return -ENOMEM;
- /*
- * Check if the allocated region fits in to start..end window
- */
- if (base < start) {
- memblock_free(base, size);
- return -ENOMEM;
- }
-
*res_base = base;
if (nomap)
return memblock_remove(base, size);
+ else
+ return memblock_reserve(base, size);
+
return 0;
}
--
2.7.4
Powered by blists - more mailing lists