linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] seq_file: add seq_read

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: <20201114041420.GA231@Ryzen-9-3900X.localdomain>
Date:   Fri, 13 Nov 2020 21:14:20 -0700
From:   Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>
To:     Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kys@...rosoft.com, haiyangz@...rosoft.com, sthemmin@...rosoft.com,
        wei.liu@...nel.org, linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] seq_file: add seq_read_iter

On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 03:54:53AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 08:01:24PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > Sure thing, it does trigger.
> > 
> > [    0.235058] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > [    0.235062] WARNING: CPU: 15 PID: 237 at fs/seq_file.c:176 seq_read_iter+0x3b3/0x3f0
> > [    0.235064] CPU: 15 PID: 237 Comm: localhost Not tainted 5.10.0-rc2-microsoft-cbl-00002-g6a9f696d1627-dirty #15
> > [    0.235065] RIP: 0010:seq_read_iter+0x3b3/0x3f0
> > [    0.235066] Code: ba 01 00 00 00 e8 6d d2 fc ff 4c 89 e7 48 89 ee 48 8b 54 24 10 e8 ad 8b 45 00 49 01 c5 48 29 43 18 48 89 43 10 e9 61 fe ff ff <0f> 0b e9 6f fc ff ff 0f 0b 45 31 ed e9 0d fd ff ff 48 c7 43 18 00
> > [    0.235067] RSP: 0018:ffff9c774063bd08 EFLAGS: 00010246
> > [    0.235068] RAX: ffff91a77ac01f00 RBX: ffff91a50133c348 RCX: 0000000000000001
> > [    0.235069] RDX: ffff9c774063bdb8 RSI: ffff9c774063bd60 RDI: ffff9c774063bd88
> > [    0.235069] RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffff91a50058b768
> > [    0.235070] R10: ffff91a7f79f0000 R11: ffffffffbc2c2030 R12: ffff9c774063bd88
> > [    0.235070] R13: ffff9c774063bd60 R14: ffff9c774063be48 R15: ffff91a77af58900
> > [    0.235072] FS:  000000000029c800(0000) GS:ffff91a7f7bc0000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> > [    0.235073] CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> > [    0.235073] CR2: 00007ab6c1fabad0 CR3: 000000037a004000 CR4: 0000000000350ea0
> > [    0.235074] Call Trace:
> > [    0.235077]  seq_read+0x127/0x150
> > [    0.235078]  proc_reg_read+0x42/0xa0
> > [    0.235080]  do_iter_read+0x14c/0x1e0
> > [    0.235081]  do_readv+0x18d/0x240
> > [    0.235083]  do_syscall_64+0x33/0x70
> > [    0.235085]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9
> 
> *blink*
> 
> 	Lovely...  For one thing, it did *not* go through
> proc_reg_read_iter().  For another, it has hit proc_reg_read() with
> zero length, which must've been an iovec with zero ->iov_len in
> readv(2) arguments.  I wonder if we should use that kind of
> pathology (readv() with zero-length segment in the middle of
> iovec array) for regression tests...
> 
> 	OK...  First of all, since that kind of crap can happen,
> let's do this (incremental to be folded); then (and that's
> a separate patch) we ought to switch the proc_ops with ->proc_read
> equal to seq_read to ->proc_read_iter = seq_read_iter, so that
> those guys would not mess with seq_read() wrapper at all.
> 
> 	Finally, is there any point having do_loop_readv_writev()
> call any methods for zero-length segments?
> 
> 	In any case, the following should be folded into
> "fix return values of seq_read_iter()"; could you check if that
> fixes the problem you are seeing?
> 
> diff --git a/fs/seq_file.c b/fs/seq_file.c
> index 07b33c1f34a9..e66d6b8bae23 100644
> --- a/fs/seq_file.c
> +++ b/fs/seq_file.c
> @@ -211,9 +211,9 @@ ssize_t seq_read_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
>  		m->count -= n;
>  		m->from += n;
>  		copied += n;
> -		if (!iov_iter_count(iter) || m->count)
> -			goto Done;
>  	}
> +	if (m->count || !iov_iter_count(iter))
> +		goto Done;
>  	/* we need at least one record in buffer */
>  	m->from = 0;
>  	p = m->op->start(m, &m->index);

Unfortunately that patch does not solve my issue. Is there any other
debugging I should add?

Cheers,
Nathan