[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <96fe1826-aeaf-4ea0-9f01-03d6b3933b34@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Dec 2021 15:06:25 +0800
From: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "mm/usercopy: Drop extra is_vmalloc_or_module()
check"
On 2021/12/24 14:01, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
> Le 23/12/2021 à 11:21, Kefeng Wang a écrit :
>> This reverts commit 517e1fbeb65f5eade8d14f46ac365db6c75aea9b.
>>
>> usercopy: Kernel memory exposure attempt detected from SLUB object not in SLUB page?! (offset 0, size 1048)!
>> kernel BUG at mm/usercopy.c:99
>> ...
>> usercopy_abort+0x64/0xa0 (unreliable)
>> __check_heap_object+0x168/0x190
>> __check_object_size+0x1a0/0x200
>> dev_ethtool+0x2494/0x2b20
>> dev_ioctl+0x5d0/0x770
>> sock_do_ioctl+0xf0/0x1d0
>> sock_ioctl+0x3ec/0x5a0
>> __se_sys_ioctl+0xf0/0x160
>> system_call_exception+0xfc/0x1f0
>> system_call_common+0xf8/0x200
>>
>> When run ethtool eth0, the BUG occurred, the code shows below,
>>
>> data = vzalloc(array_size(gstrings.len, ETH_GSTRING_LEN));
>> copy_to_user(useraddr, data, gstrings.len * ETH_GSTRING_LEN))
>>
>> The data is alloced by vmalloc(), virt_addr_valid(ptr) will return true
>> on PowerPC64, which leads to the panic, add back the is_vmalloc_or_module()
>> check to fix it.
> Is it expected that virt_addr_valid() returns true on PPC64 for
> vmalloc'ed memory ? If that's the case it also means that
> CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL won't work as expected either.
Our product reports this bug to me, after let them do some test,
I found virt_addr_valid return true for vmalloc'ed memory on their board.
I think DEBUG_VIRTUAL could not be work well too, but I can't test it.
>
> If it is unexpected, I think you should fix PPC64 instead of adding this
> hack back. Maybe the ARM64 fix can be used as a starting point, see
> commit 68dd8ef32162 ("arm64: memory: Fix virt_addr_valid() using
> __is_lm_address()")
Yes, I check the history, fix virt_addr_valid() on PowerPC is what I
firstly want to do,
but I am not familiar with PPC, and also HARDENED_USERCOPY on other's
ARCHs could
has this issue too, so I add the workaround back.
1) PPC maintainer/expert, any suggestion ?
2) Maybe we could add some check to WARN this scenario.
--- a/mm/usercopy.c
+++ b/mm/usercopy.c
@@ -229,6 +229,8 @@ static inline void check_heap_object(const void
*ptr, unsigned long n,
if (!virt_addr_valid(ptr))
return;
+ WARN_ON_ONCE(is_vmalloc_or_module_addr(ptr));
> In the meantime, can you provide more information on your config,
> especially which memory model is used ?
Some useful configs,
CONFIG_PPC64=y
CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3E_64=y
CONFIG_E5500_CPU=y
CONFIG_TARGET_CPU_BOOL=y
CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3E=y
CONFIG_E500=y
CONFIG_PPC_E500MC=y
CONFIG_PPC_FPU=y
CONFIG_FSL_EMB_PERFMON=y
CONFIG_FSL_EMB_PERF_EVENT=y
CONFIG_FSL_EMB_PERF_EVENT_E500=y
CONFIG_BOOKE=y
CONFIG_PPC_FSL_BOOK3E=y
CONFIG_PTE_64BIT=y
CONFIG_PHYS_64BIT=y
CONFIG_PPC_MMU_NOHASH=y
CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3E_MMU=y
CONFIG_SELECT_MEMORY_MODEL=y
CONFIG_FLATMEM_MANUAL=y
CONFIG_FLATMEM=y
CONFIG_FLAT_NODE_MEM_MAP=y
CONFIG_SPARSEMEM_VMEMMAP_ENABLE=y
>
> Christophe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists