linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] x86/traps: Print non-canonical address on #GP

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: <CAG48ez1AWW7FkvU31ahy=0ZiaAreSMz=FFA0u8-XkXT9hNdWKA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Nov 2019 17:19:44 +0100
From:   Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] x86/traps: Print non-canonical address on #GP

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 5:03 PM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 3:21 PM Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 08:17:27PM +0100, Jann Horn wrote:
> > >  dotraplinkage void
> > >  do_general_protection(struct pt_regs *regs, long error_code)
> > >  {
> > > @@ -547,8 +581,15 @@ do_general_protection(struct pt_regs *regs, long error_code)
> > >                       return;
> > >
> > >               if (notify_die(DIE_GPF, desc, regs, error_code,
> > > -                            X86_TRAP_GP, SIGSEGV) != NOTIFY_STOP)
> > > -                     die(desc, regs, error_code);
> > > +                            X86_TRAP_GP, SIGSEGV) == NOTIFY_STOP)
> > > +                     return;
> > > +
> > > +             if (error_code)
> > > +                     pr_alert("GPF is segment-related (see error code)\n");
> > > +             else
> > > +                     print_kernel_gp_address(regs);
> > > +
> > > +             die(desc, regs, error_code);
> >
> > Right, this way, those messages appear before the main "general
> > protection ..." message:
> >
> > [    2.434372] traps: probably dereferencing non-canonical address 0xdfff000000000001
> > [    2.442492] general protection fault: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
> >
> > Can we glue/merge them together? Or is this going to confuse tools too much:
> >
> > [    2.542218] general protection fault while derefing a non-canonical address 0xdfff000000000001: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
> >
> > (and that sentence could be shorter too:
> >
> >         "general protection fault for non-canonical address 0xdfff000000000001"
> >
> > looks ok to me too.)
>
> This exact form will confuse syzkaller crash parsing for Linux kernel:
> https://github.com/google/syzkaller/blob/1daed50ac33511e1a107228a9c3b80e5c4aebb5c/pkg/report/linux.go#L1347
> It expects a "general protection fault:" line for these crashes.
>
> A graceful way to update kernel crash messages would be to add more
> tests with the new format here:
> https://github.com/google/syzkaller/tree/1daed50ac33511e1a107228a9c3b80e5c4aebb5c/pkg/report/testdata/linux/report
> Update parsing code. Roll out new version. Update all other testing
> systems that detect and parse kernel crashes. Then commit kernel
> changes.

So for syzkaller, it'd be fine as long as we keep the colon there?
Something like:

general protection fault: derefing non-canonical address
0xdfff000000000001: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP

And it looks like the 0day test bot doesn't have any specific pattern
for #GP, it seems to just look for the panic triggered by
panic-on-oops as far as I can tell (oops=panic in lkp-exec/qemu, no
"general protection fault" in etc/dmesg-kill-pattern).

> An unfortunate consequence of offloading testing to third-party systems...

And of not having a standard way to signal "this line starts something
that should be reported as a bug"? Maybe as a longer-term idea, it'd
help to have some sort of extra prefix byte that the kernel can print
to say "here comes a bug report, first line should be the subject", or
something like that, similar to how we have loglevels...