linux-kernel - Re: [LTP] mmstress[1309]: segfault at 7f3d71a36ee8 ip 00007f3d77132bdf sp 00007f3d71a36ee8 error 4 in libc-2.27.so[7f3d77058000+1aa000]

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]

Date:   Fri, 23 Oct 2020 23:20:13 +0530
From:   Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
        Daniel Díaz <daniel.diaz@...aro.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
        zenglg.jy@...fujitsu.com,
        "Peter Zijlstra (Intel)" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
        "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, LTP List <ltp@...ts.linux.it>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [LTP] mmstress[1309]: segfault at 7f3d71a36ee8 ip
 00007f3d77132bdf sp 00007f3d71a36ee8 error 4 in libc-2.27.so[7f3d77058000+1aa000]

On Fri, 23 Oct 2020 at 22:03, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 8:54 AM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 12:14 AM Rasmus Villemoes
> > <linux@...musvillemoes.dk> wrote:
> > >
> > > That's certainly garbage. Now, I don't know if it's a sufficient fix (or
> > > could break something else), but the obvious first step of rearranging
> > > so that the ptr argument is evaluated before the assignment to __val_pu
> >
> > Ack. We could do that.
> >
> > I'm more inclined to just bite the bullet and go back to the ugly
> > conditional on the size that I had hoped to avoid, but if that turns
> > out too ugly, mind signing off on your patch and I'll have that as a
> > fallback?
>
> Actually, looking at that code, and the fact that we've used the
> "register asm()" format forever for the get_user() side, I think your
> approach is the right one.
>
> I'd rename the internal ptr variable to "__ptr_pu", and make sure the
> assignments happen just before the asm call (with the __val_pu
> assignment being the final thing).
>
> lso, it needs to be
>
>         void __user *__ptr_pu;
>
> instead of
>
>         __typeof__(ptr) __ptr = (ptr);
>
> because "ptr" may actually be an array, and we need to have the usual
> C "array to pointer" conversions happen, rather than try to make
> __ptr_pu be an array too.
>
> So the patch would become something like the appended instead, but I'd
> still like your sign-off (and I'd put you as author of the fix).
>
> Narest, can you confirm that this patch fixes the issue for you?

This patch fixed the reported problem.

Tested-by: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>

Build location:
https://builds.tuxbuild.com/uDAiW8jkN61oWoyxZDkEYA/

Test logs,
https://lkft.validation.linaro.org/scheduler/job/1868045#L1597

- Naresh