linux-kernel - Re: "kernel ade access" oops on LoongArch

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: <6268f221cfca8b7550ad0673246f09cd439ede05.camel@xry111.site>
Date:   Wed, 15 Feb 2023 20:51:38 +0800
From:   Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site>
To:     Youling Tang <tangyouling@...ngson.cn>
Cc:     Jinyang He <hejinyang@...ngson.cn>, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
        WANG Xuerui <kernel@...0n.name>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: "kernel ade access" oops on LoongArch

On Wed, 2023-02-15 at 19:52 +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-02-15 at 16:35 +0800, Xi Ruoyao wrote:
> > On Wed, 2023-02-15 at 16:25 +0800, Youling Tang wrote:
> > > Can you modify the kernel as follows and test it, so as to avoid
> > > possible relationship with the exception table data link position
> > > and
> > > alignment rules (or use EXCEPTION_TABLE(12))?
> > > 
> > > --- a/arch/loongarch/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
> > > +++ b/arch/loongarch/kernel/vmlinux.lds.S
> > > @@ -4,7 +4,6 @@
> > >   #include <asm/thread_info.h>
> > > 
> > >   #define PAGE_SIZE _PAGE_SIZE
> > > -#define RO_EXCEPTION_TABLE_ALIGN       4
> > > 
> > >   /*
> > >    * Put .bss..swapper_pg_dir as the first thing in .bss. This
> > > will
> > > @@ -54,6 +53,8 @@ SECTIONS
> > >          . = ALIGN(PECOFF_SEGMENT_ALIGN);
> > >          _etext = .;
> > > 
> > > +       EXCEPTION_TABLE(16)
> > > +
> > 
> > It seems the kernel refuses to boot after the change, but I'm not
> > completely sure: I'm 5 km away from the board and operating it via
> > ssh
> > so maybe it's a reboot failure or network failure.  I'll report
> > again in
> > the evening.
> 
> It was a reboot failure.
> 
> Now it has booted successfully, but the stack trace still shows (during
> the 25th run of the make test t=... command).

Ouch, I know what's happening...

In the architecture-independent code we have something like

extern struct exception_table_entry a[], b[];
bsearch(a, b - a);

According to the C standard, when you write "b - a" where a and b are
pointers to type T, "b" and "a" must be pointers to elements in the same
array of T.  So the compiler can assume ((uintptr_t)b - (uintptr_t)a) %
12 == 0 and optimize "b - a" to something like

(((uintptr_t)b - (uintptr_t)a) >> 2) * inv3

Here inv3 is the inversion of 3 in the modulo-2**64 integer ring, so the
compiler can avoid an expensive divide instruction.  But in my vmlinux
((uintptr_t)b - (uintptr_t)a) is somehow not a multiple of 12:

(gdb) p ((uintptr_t)__stop___ex_table - (uintptr_t)__start___ex_table) % sizeof(struct exception_table_entry)
$9 = 8

So I guess

#define RO_EXCEPTION_TABLE_ALIGN       12

will work.  I'll take a try...

-- 
Xi Ruoyao <xry111@...111.site>
School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University