linux-kernel - Re: BUG : PowerPC RCU: torture test failed with __stack_chk

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: <CAABZP2ypJ98T3XAqPnLrxxzrYckSQ6sn3woEmpigQ+cRRaw=Zw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Apr 2023 18:58:46 +0800
From:   Zhouyi Zhou <zhouzhouyi@...il.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
        rcu <rcu@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lance@...osl.org,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: BUG : PowerPC RCU: torture test failed with __stack_chk_fail

hi

On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 6:13 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 02:55:11PM -0400, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > This is amazing debugging Boqun, like a boss! One comment below:
> >
> > > > > Or something simple I haven't thought of? :)
> > > >
> > > > At what points can r13 change?  Only when some particular functions are
> > > > called?
> > > >
> > >
> > > r13 is the local paca:
> > >
> > >         register struct paca_struct *local_paca asm("r13");
> > >
> > > , which is a pointer to percpu data.
> > >
> > > So if a task schedule from one CPU to anotehr CPU, the value gets
> > > changed.
> >
> > It appears the whole issue, per your analysis, is that the stack
> > checking code in gcc should not cache or alias r13, and must read its
> > most up-to-date value during stack checking, as its value may have
> > changed during a migration to a new CPU.
> >
> > Did I get that right?
> >
> > IMO, even without a reproducer, gcc on PPC should just not do that,
> > that feels terribly broken for the kernel. I wonder what clang does,
> > I'll go poke around with compilerexplorer after lunch.
> >
> > Adding +Peter Zijlstra as well to join the party as I have a feeling
> > he'll be interested. ;-)
>
> I'm a little confused; the way I understand the whole stack protector
> thing to work is that we push a canary on the stack at call and on
> return check it is still valid. Since in general tasks randomly migrate,
> the per-cpu validation canary should be the same on all CPUs.
>
> Additionally, the 'new' __srcu_read_{,un}lock_nmisafe() functions use
> raw_cpu_ptr() to get 'a' percpu sdp, preferably that of the local cpu,
> but no guarantees.
>
> Both cases use r13 (paca) in a racy manner, and in both cases it should
> be safe.
New test results today: both gcc build from git (git clone
git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git) and Ubuntu 22.04 gcc-12.1.0
are immune from the above issue. We can see the assembly code on
http://140.211.169.189/0425/srcu_gp_start_if_needed-gcc-12.txt

while
Both native gcc on PPC vm (gcc version 9.4.0), and gcc cross compiler
on my x86 laptop (gcc version 10.4.0) will reproduce the bug.