linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] kasan: Unset panic_on

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 18 Jan 2020 10:19:12 +0100
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Elena Petrova <lenaptr@...gle.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] kasan: Unset panic_on_warn before calling panic()

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 10:20 PM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 10:54:36AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:49 AM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 06:23:01AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 2:24 AM Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > As done in the full WARN() handler, panic_on_warn needs to be cleared
> > > > > before calling panic() to avoid recursive panics.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  mm/kasan/report.c | 10 +++++++++-
> > > > >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/mm/kasan/report.c b/mm/kasan/report.c
> > > > > index 621782100eaa..844554e78893 100644
> > > > > --- a/mm/kasan/report.c
> > > > > +++ b/mm/kasan/report.c
> > > > > @@ -92,8 +92,16 @@ static void end_report(unsigned long *flags)
> > > > >         pr_err("==================================================================\n");
> > > > >         add_taint(TAINT_BAD_PAGE, LOCKDEP_NOW_UNRELIABLE);
> > > > >         spin_unlock_irqrestore(&report_lock, *flags);
> > > > > -       if (panic_on_warn)
> > > > > +       if (panic_on_warn) {
> > > > > +               /*
> > > > > +                * This thread may hit another WARN() in the panic path.
> > > > > +                * Resetting this prevents additional WARN() from panicking the
> > > > > +                * system on this thread.  Other threads are blocked by the
> > > > > +                * panic_mutex in panic().
> > > >
> > > > I don't understand part about other threads.
> > > > Other threads are not necessary inside of panic(). And in fact since
> > > > we reset panic_on_warn, they will not get there even if they should.
> > > > If I am reading this correctly, once one thread prints a warning and
> > > > is going to panic, other threads may now print infinite amounts of
> > > > warning and proceed past them freely. Why is this the behavior we
> > > > want?
> > >
> > > AIUI, the issue is the current thread hitting another WARN and blocking
> > > on trying to call panic again. WARNs encountered during the execution of
> > > panic() need to not attempt to call panic() again.
> >
> > Yes, but the variable is global and affects other threads and the
> > comment talks about other threads, and that's the part I am confused
> > about (for both comment wording and the actual behavior). For the
> > "same thread hitting another warning" case we need a per-task flag or
> > something.
>
> This is duplicating the common panic-on-warn logic (see the generic bug
> code), so I'd like to just have the same behavior between the three
> implementations of panic-on-warn (generic bug, kasan, ubsan), and then
> work to merge them into a common handler, and then perhaps fix the
> details of the behavior. I think it's more correct to allow the panicing
> thread to complete than to care about what the other threads are doing.
> Right now, a WARN within the panic code will either a) hang the machine,
> or b) not panic, allowing the rest of the threads to continue, maybe
> then hitting other WARNs and hanging. The generic bug code does not
> suffer from this.

I see. Then:

Acked-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>