[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210115104945.GB16707@gaia>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 10:49:45 +0000
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Peter Collingbourne <pcc@...gle.com>,
Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@...gle.com>,
Branislav Rankov <Branislav.Rankov@....com>,
Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@....com>,
kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] kasan, arm64: fix pointer tags in KASAN reports
On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 08:33:57PM +0100, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> As of the "arm64: expose FAR_EL1 tag bits in siginfo" patch, the address
> that is passed to report_tag_fault has pointer tags in the format of 0x0X,
> while KASAN uses 0xFX format (note the difference in the top 4 bits).
>
> Fix up the pointer tag before calling kasan_report.
>
> Link: https://linux-review.googlesource.com/id/I9ced973866036d8679e8f4ae325de547eb969649
> Fixes: dceec3ff7807 ("arm64: expose FAR_EL1 tag bits in siginfo")
> Fixes: 4291e9ee6189 ("kasan, arm64: print report from tag fault handler")
> Signed-off-by: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/mm/fault.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> index 3c40da479899..a218f6f2fdc8 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> @@ -304,6 +304,8 @@ static void report_tag_fault(unsigned long addr, unsigned int esr,
> {
> bool is_write = ((esr & ESR_ELx_WNR) >> ESR_ELx_WNR_SHIFT) != 0;
>
> + /* The format of KASAN tags is 0xF<x>. */
> + addr |= (0xF0UL << MTE_TAG_SHIFT);
> /*
> * SAS bits aren't set for all faults reported in EL1, so we can't
> * find out access size.
I already replied here but I don't see any change in v2:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20210113165441.GC27045@gaia/
--
Catalin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists