[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200919110831.GD7462@zn.tnic>
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2020 13:08:31 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: syzbot <syzbot+ce179bc99e64377c24bc@...kaller.appspotmail.com>
Cc: acme@...nel.org, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, hpa@...or.com,
jolsa@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mark.rutland@....com, mingo@...hat.com, namhyung@...nel.org,
peterz@...radead.org, syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: general protection fault in perf_misc_flags
On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 01:32:14AM -0700, syzbot wrote:
> Hello,
>
> syzbot found the following issue on:
>
> HEAD commit: 92ab97ad Merge tag 'sh-for-5.9-part2' of git://git.libc.or..
> git tree: upstream
> console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=1069669b900000
> kernel config: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=cd992d74d6c7e62
> dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=ce179bc99e64377c24bc
> compiler: clang version 10.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/ c2443155a0fb245c8f17f2c1c72b6ea391e86e81)
>
> Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this issue yet.
>
> IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit:
> Reported-by: syzbot+ce179bc99e64377c24bc@...kaller.appspotmail.com
>
> general protection fault, probably for non-canonical address 0xffff518084501e28: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN
> KASAN: maybe wild-memory-access in range [0xfffaac042280f140-0xfffaac042280f147]
> CPU: 0 PID: 17449 Comm: syz-executor.5 Not tainted 5.9.0-rc5-syzkaller #0
> Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 01/01/2011
> RIP: 0010:perf_misc_flags+0x125/0x150 arch/x86/events/core.c:2638
> Code: e4 48 83 e6 03 41 0f 94 c4 31 ff e8 95 fa 73 00 bb 02 00 00 00 4c 29 e3 49 81 c6 90 00 00 00 4c 89 f0 48 c1 e8 00 00 00 00 38 <00> 74 08 4c 89 f7 e8 40 c0 b3 00 41 8b 06 83 e0 08 48 c1 e0 0b 48
Hmm, so converting this back to opcodes with decodecode gives:
Code: e4 48 83 e6 03 41 0f 94 c4 31 ff e8 95 fa 73 00 bb 02 00 00 00 4c 29 e3 49 81 c6 90 00 00 00 4c 89 f0 48 c1 e8 00 00 00 00 38 <00> 74 08 4c 89 f7 e8 40 c0 b3 00 41 8b 06 83 e0 08 48 c1 e0 0b 48
All code
========
0: e4 48 in $0x48,%al
2: 83 e6 03 and $0x3,%esi
5: 41 0f 94 c4 sete %r12b
9: 31 ff xor %edi,%edi
b: e8 95 fa 73 00 callq 0x73faa5
10: bb 02 00 00 00 mov $0x2,%ebx
15: 4c 29 e3 sub %r12,%rbx
18: 49 81 c6 90 00 00 00 add $0x90,%r14
1f: 4c 89 f0 mov %r14,%rax
22: 48 c1 e8 00 shr $0x0,%rax
26: 00 00 add %al,(%rax)
28: 00 38 add %bh,(%rax)
2a:* 00 74 08 4c add %dh,0x4c(%rax,%rcx,1) <-- trapping instruction
2e: 89 f7 mov %esi,%edi
30: e8 40 c0 b3 00 callq 0xb3c075
35: 41 8b 06 mov (%r14),%eax
38: 83 e0 08 and $0x8,%eax
3b: 48 c1 e0 0b shl $0xb,%rax
3f: 48 rex.W
and those ADDs before the rIP look real strange. Just as if something
wrote 4 bytes of 0s there. And building your config with clang-10 gives
around that area:
ffffffff8101177c: 48 83 e6 03 and $0x3,%rsi
ffffffff81011780: 41 0f 94 c4 sete %r12b
ffffffff81011784: 31 ff xor %edi,%edi
ffffffff81011786: e8 05 c9 73 00 callq ffffffff8174e090 <__sanitizer_cov_trace_const_cmp8>
ffffffff8101178b: bb 02 00 00 00 mov $0x2,%ebx
ffffffff81011790: 4c 29 e3 sub %r12,%rbx
ffffffff81011793: 49 81 c6 90 00 00 00 add $0x90,%r14
ffffffff8101179a: 4c 89 f0 mov %r14,%rax
ffffffff8101179d: 48 c1 e8 03 shr $0x3,%rax
ffffffff810117a1: 42 80 3c 38 00 cmpb $0x0,(%rax,%r15,1)
ffffffff810117a6: 74 08 je ffffffff810117b0 <perf_misc_flags+0x130>
ffffffff810117a8: 4c 89 f7 mov %r14,%rdi
ffffffff810117ab: e8 20 75 b3 00 callq ffffffff81b48cd0 <__asan_report_load8_noabort>
ffffffff810117b0: 41 8b 06 mov (%r14),%eax
ffffffff810117b3: 83 e0 08 and $0x8,%eax
ffffffff810117b6: 48 c1 e0 0b shl $0xb,%rax
and I can pretty much follow it instruction by instruction until I reach
that SHR. Your SHR is doing a shift by 0 bytes and that already looks
suspicious.
After it, your output has a bunch of suspicious ADDs and mine has a CMP;
JE instead. And that looks really strange too.
Could it be that something has scribbled in guest memory and corrupted
that area, leading to that strange discrepancy in the opcodes?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists