linux-kernel - Re: [srcu] a365bb5f6e: leaking_addresses.proc.___srcu_struct

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 8 Apr 2019 13:25:49 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To:     paulmck <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Rong Chen <rong.a.chen@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, LKP <lkp@...org>,
        "Joel Fernandes, Google" <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Subject: Re: [srcu] a365bb5f6e: leaking_addresses.proc.___srcu_struct_ptrs.

----- On Apr 8, 2019, at 1:10 PM, paulmck paulmck@...ux.ibm.com wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 01:06:56PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> ----- On Apr 8, 2019, at 11:21 AM, paulmck paulmck@...ux.ibm.com wrote:
>> 
>> > On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 10:57:50PM +0800, Rong Chen wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 07:30:37AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 09:56:10PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>> >> > > FYI, we noticed the following commit (built with gcc-7):
>> >> > > 
>> >> > > commit: a365bb5f6eafb220a1448674054b05c250829313 ("srcu: Allocate per-CPU data
>> >> > > for DEFINE_SRCU() in modules")
>> >> > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git
>> >> > > tmp.2019.04.07a
>> >> > > 
>> >> > > in testcase: leaking_addresses
>> >> > > with following parameters:
>> >> > > 
>> >> > > 
>> >> > > 
>> >> > > 
>> >> > > on test machine: qemu-system-x86_64 -enable-kvm -cpu SandyBridge -smp 2 -m 2G
>> >> > > 
>> >> > > caused below changes (please refer to attached dmesg/kmsg for entire
>> >> > > log/backtrace):
>> >> > > 
>> >> > > 
>> >> > > +-------------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
>> >> > > |                                                 | a44a55abae | a365bb5f6e |
>> >> > > +-------------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
>> >> > > | boot_successes                                  | 0          | 3          |
>> >> > > | boot_failures                                   | 4          | 6          |
>> >> > > | BUG:kernel_reboot-without-warning_in_test_stage | 4          | 6          |
>> >> > > | leaking_addresses.proc.___srcu_struct_ptrs.     | 0          | 6          |
>> >> > > +-------------------------------------------------+------------+------------+
>> >> > 
>> >> > Please help me out here.  Without this commit, the kernel never succeeds
>> >> > in booting, but with it the kernel sometimes succeeds in booting?  Or am
>> >> > I misinterpreting the above table?
>> >> > 
>> >> > 							Thanx, Paul
>> >> 
>> >> Hi Paul,
>> >> 
>> >> The message "kernel_reboot-without-warning_in_test_stage" is from 0day,
>> >> leaking addresses generated many dmesgs, so 0day thought some bootings may
>> >> failed.
>> > 
>> [...]
>> >> > 
>> >> > > [1 .rodata.cst16.POLY] 0xffffffffc0498360
>> >> > > [1 .rodata.cst32.byteshift_table] 0xffffffffc03f50f0
>> >> > > [19 __bug_table] 0xffffffffc02be184
>> >> > > [2 __tracepoints_ptrs] 0xffffffffc02f1cd0
>> >> > > [15 .smp_locks] 0xffffffffc042b2cc
>> >> > > [1 .rodata.cst16.enc] 0xffffffffc0498420
>> >> > > [11 __ksymtab_gpl] 0xffffffffc042b028
>> >> > > [8 __ex_table] 0xffffffffc04f13f4
>> >> > > [1 .init.rodata] 0xffffffffc0316000
>> >> > > [36 .note.gnu.build-id] 0xffffffffc03ed000
>> >> > > [1 .rodata.cst16.dec] 0xffffffffc0498410
>> >> > > [16 .parainstructions] 0xffffffffc03ed940
>> >> > > [8 .text..refcount] 0xffffffffc04e2aaa
>> >> > > [36 .gnu.linkonce.this_module] 0xffffffffc03f12c0
>> >> > > [2 __bpf_raw_tp_map] 0xffffffffc03054a0
>> >> > > [30 .orc_unwind_ip] 0xffffffffc03ee9f9
>> >> > > [8 .altinstr_replacement] 0xffffffffc0497372
>> >> > > [26 .rodata.str1.8] 0xffffffffc03ed1f0
>> >> > > [11 __verbose] 0xffffffffc05c9398
>> >> > > [1 .rodata.cst16.TWOONE] 0xffffffffc0498380
>> >> > > [1 uevent] KEY=402000000 3803078f800d001 feffffdfffefffff fffffffffffffffe
>> >> > > [1 .rodata.cst16.ONE] 0xffffffffc04983e0
>> >> > > [8 .altinstructions] 0xffffffffc0498430
>> >> > > [36 modules] crct10dif_pclmul 16384 1 - Live 0xffffffffc03f4000
>> >> > > [1 ___srcu_struct_ptrs] 0xffffffffc03840d0
>> >> > > 
>> 
>> This list of "leaked" memory seems to include the __tracepoint_ptrs
>> as well. So at least you seem to have the same behavior as the tracepoint
>> code, which was your source of inspiration for this implementation,
>> which is a good start.
>> 
>> So the remaining question is: is this memory allocated for module sections
>> really leaked for each module, or is it an issue with memory allocation
>> tracking ?
> 
> Thank you, Mathieu!
> 
> Also, is there some way to put this read-only (OK, relocated-only)
> memory in with the module .text segment?  ;-)

Theoretically, there should be! But I have no clue on how to do it.

Thanks,

Mathieu


-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com