linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1] powerpc: Enable KFENCE for PPC32

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: <874khqry78.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
Date:   Fri, 05 Mar 2021 16:01:15 +1100
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>
Cc:     Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1] powerpc: Enable KFENCE for PPC32

Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 12:48PM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>> Le 04/03/2021 à 12:31, Marco Elver a écrit :
>> > On Thu, 4 Mar 2021 at 12:23, Christophe Leroy
>> > <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu> wrote:
>> > > Le 03/03/2021 à 11:56, Marco Elver a écrit :
>> > > > 
>> > > > Somewhat tangentially, I also note that e.g. show_regs(regs) (which
>> > > > was printed along the KFENCE report above) didn't include the top
>> > > > frame in the "Call Trace", so this assumption is definitely not
>> > > > isolated to KFENCE.
>> > > > 
>> > > 
>> > > Now, I have tested PPC64 (with the patch I sent yesterday to modify save_stack_trace_regs()
>> > > applied), and I get many failures. Any idea ?
>> > > 
>> > > [   17.653751][   T58] ==================================================================
>> > > [   17.654379][   T58] BUG: KFENCE: invalid free in .kfence_guarded_free+0x2e4/0x530
>> > > [   17.654379][   T58]
>> > > [   17.654831][   T58] Invalid free of 0xc00000003c9c0000 (in kfence-#77):
>> > > [   17.655358][   T58]  .kfence_guarded_free+0x2e4/0x530
>> > > [   17.655775][   T58]  .__slab_free+0x320/0x5a0
>> > > [   17.656039][   T58]  .test_double_free+0xe0/0x198
>> > > [   17.656308][   T58]  .kunit_try_run_case+0x80/0x110
>> > > [   17.656523][   T58]  .kunit_generic_run_threadfn_adapter+0x38/0x50
>> > > [   17.657161][   T58]  .kthread+0x18c/0x1a0
>> > > [   17.659148][   T58]  .ret_from_kernel_thread+0x58/0x70
>> > > [   17.659869][   T58]
> [...]
>> > 
>> > Looks like something is prepending '.' to function names. We expect
>> > the function name to appear as-is, e.g. "kfence_guarded_free",
>> > "test_double_free", etc.
>> > 
>> > Is there something special on ppc64, where the '.' is some convention?
>> > 
>> 
>> I think so, see https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/ELF/ppc64/PPC-elf64abi.html#FUNC-DES
>> 
>> Also see commit https://github.com/linuxppc/linux/commit/02424d896
>
> Thanks -- could you try the below patch? You'll need to define
> ARCH_FUNC_PREFIX accordingly.
>
> We think, since there are only very few architectures that add a prefix,
> requiring <asm/kfence.h> to define something like ARCH_FUNC_PREFIX is
> the simplest option. Let me know if this works for you.
>
> There an alternative option, which is to dynamically figure out the
> prefix, but if this simpler option is fine with you, we'd prefer it.

We have rediscovered this problem in basically every tracing / debugging
feature added in the last 20 years :)

I think the simplest solution is the one tools/perf/util/symbol.c uses,
which is to just skip a leading '.'.

Does that work?

diff --git a/mm/kfence/report.c b/mm/kfence/report.c
index ab83d5a59bb1..67b49dc54b38 100644
--- a/mm/kfence/report.c
+++ b/mm/kfence/report.c
@@ -67,6 +67,9 @@ static int get_stack_skipnr(const unsigned long stack_entries[], int num_entries
 	for (skipnr = 0; skipnr < num_entries; skipnr++) {
 		int len = scnprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "%ps", (void *)stack_entries[skipnr]);
 
+		if (buf[0] == '.')
+			buf++;
+
 		if (str_has_prefix(buf, "kfence_") || str_has_prefix(buf, "__kfence_") ||
 		    !strncmp(buf, "__slab_free", len)) {
 			/*



cheers