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]
Date:   Fri, 12 Apr 2019 15:18:50 +0000
From:   Nadav Amit <>
To:     Nadav Amit <>
CC:     Peter Zijlstra <>,
        kernel test robot <>, LKP <>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <>,
        Linux-MM <>,
        linux-arch <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Will Deacon <>,
        Andy Lutomirski <>,
        Linus Torvalds <>,
        Dave Hansen <>
Subject: Re: 1808d65b55 ("asm-generic/tlb: Remove arch_tlb*_mmu()"):  BUG:
 KASAN: stack-out-of-bounds in __change_page_attr_set_clr

> On Apr 12, 2019, at 8:11 AM, Nadav Amit <> wrote:
>> On Apr 12, 2019, at 4:17 AM, Peter Zijlstra <> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 12:56:33PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 11:13:48PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 09:54:24PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 09:39:06PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>>>> I think this bisect is bad. If you look at your own logs this patch
>>>>>> merely changes the failure, but doesn't make it go away.
>>>>>> Before this patch (in fact, before tip/core/mm entirely) the errror
>>>>>> reads like the below, which suggests there is memory corruption
>>>>>> somewhere, and the fingered patch just makes it trigger differently.
>>>>>> It would be very good to find the source of this corruption, but I'm
>>>>>> fairly certain it is not here.
>>>>> I went back to v4.20 to try and find a time when the below error did not
>>>>> occur, but even that reliably triggers the warning.
>>>> So I also tested v4.19 and found that that was good, which made me
>>>> bisect v4.19..v4.20
>>>> # bad: [8fe28cb58bcb235034b64cbbb7550a8a43fd88be] Linux 4.20
>>>> # good: [84df9525b0c27f3ebc2ebb1864fa62a97fdedb7d] Linux 4.19
>>>> git bisect start 'v4.20' 'v4.19'
>>>> # bad: [ec9c166434595382be3babf266febf876327774d] Merge tag 'mips_fixes_4.20_1' of git://
>>>> git bisect bad ec9c166434595382be3babf266febf876327774d
>>>> # bad: [50b825d7e87f4cff7070df6eb26390152bb29537] Merge git://
>>>> git bisect bad 50b825d7e87f4cff7070df6eb26390152bb29537
>>>> # good: [99e9acd85ccbdc8f5785f9e961d4956e96bd6aa5] Merge tag 'mlx5-updates-2018-10-17' of git://
>>>> git bisect good 99e9acd85ccbdc8f5785f9e961d4956e96bd6aa5
>>>> # good: [c403993a41d50db1e7d9bc2d43c3c8498162312f] Merge tag 'for-linus-4.20' of;;sdata=3VSR3VdE5rxOitAdkqFNPpAnAtLgDmYLzJtoUrs5v9Y%3D&amp;reserved=0
>>>> git bisect good c403993a41d50db1e7d9bc2d43c3c8498162312f
>>>> # good: [c05f3642f4304dd081876e77a68555b6aba4483f] Merge branch 'perf-core-for-linus' of git://
>>>> git bisect good c05f3642f4304dd081876e77a68555b6aba4483f
>>>> # bad: [44786880df196a4200c178945c4d41675faf9fb7] Merge branch 'parisc-4.20-1' of git://
>>>> git bisect bad 44786880df196a4200c178945c4d41675faf9fb7
>>>> # bad: [99792e0cea1ed733cdc8d0758677981e0cbebfed] Merge branch 'x86-mm-for-linus' of git://
>>>> git bisect bad 99792e0cea1ed733cdc8d0758677981e0cbebfed
>>>> # good: [fec98069fb72fb656304a3e52265e0c2fc9adf87] Merge branch 'x86-cpu-for-linus' of git://
>>>> git bisect good fec98069fb72fb656304a3e52265e0c2fc9adf87
>>>> # bad: [a31acd3ee8f7dbc0370bdf4a4bfef7a8c13c7542] x86/mm: Page size aware flush_tlb_mm_range()
>>>> git bisect bad a31acd3ee8f7dbc0370bdf4a4bfef7a8c13c7542
>>>> # good: [a7295fd53c39ce781a9792c9dd2c8747bf274160] x86/mm/cpa: Use flush_tlb_kernel_range()
>>>> git bisect good a7295fd53c39ce781a9792c9dd2c8747bf274160
>>>> # good: [9cf38d5559e813cccdba8b44c82cc46ba48d0896] kexec: Allocate decrypted control pages for kdump if SME is enabled
>>>> git bisect good 9cf38d5559e813cccdba8b44c82cc46ba48d0896
>>>> # good: [5b12904065798fee8b153a506ac7b72d5ebbe26c] x86/mm/doc: Clean up the x86-64 virtual memory layout descriptions
>>>> git bisect good 5b12904065798fee8b153a506ac7b72d5ebbe26c
>>>> # good: [cf089611f4c446285046fcd426d90c18f37d2905] proc/vmcore: Fix i386 build error of missing copy_oldmem_page_encrypted()
>>>> git bisect good cf089611f4c446285046fcd426d90c18f37d2905
>>>> # good: [a5b966ae42a70b194b03eaa5eaea70d8b3790c40] Merge branch 'tlb/asm-generic' of git:// into x86/mm
>>>> git bisect good a5b966ae42a70b194b03eaa5eaea70d8b3790c40
>>>> # first bad commit: [a31acd3ee8f7dbc0370bdf4a4bfef7a8c13c7542] x86/mm: Page size aware flush_tlb_mm_range()
>>>> And 'funnily' the bad patch is one of mine too :/
>>>> I'll go have a look at that tomorrow, because currrently I'm way past
>>>> tired.
>>> OK, so the below patchlet makes it all good. It turns out that the
>>> provided config has:
>>> which then, for some obscure raisin, results in flush_tlb_mm_range()
>>> compiling to use 320 bytes of stack:
>>> sub    $0x140,%rsp
>>> Where a 'defconfig' build results in:
>>> sub    $0x58,%rsp
>>> The thing that pushes it over the edge in the above fingered patch is
>>> the addition of a field to struct flush_tlb_info, which grows if from 32
>>> to 36 bytes.
>>> So my proposal is to basically revert that, unless we can come up with
>>> something that GCC can't screw up.
>> To clarify, 'that' is Nadav's patch:
>> 515ab7c41306 ("x86/mm: Align TLB invalidation info")
>> which turns out to be the real problem.
> Sorry for that. I still think it should be aligned, especially with all the
> effort the Intel puts around to avoid bus-locking on unaligned atomic
> operations.
> So the right solution seems to me as putting this data structure off stack.
> It would prevent flush_tlb_mm_range() from being reentrant, so we can keep a
> few entries for this matter and atomically increase the entry number every
> time we enter flush_tlb_mm_range().
> But my question is - should flush_tlb_mm_range() be reentrant, or can we
> assume no TLB shootdowns are initiated in interrupt handlers and #MC
> handlers?

Just to clarify - I obviously suggest a per-cpu structure. The question
is about one core reentering flush_tlb_mm_range().

Powered by blists - more mailing lists