linux-kernel - Re: Bisected stability regression in 6.6

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZVAo0wbqiSC3kB3-@gallifrey>
Date:   Sun, 12 Nov 2023 01:22:27 +0000
From:   "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dave@...blig.org>
To:     matoro <matoro_mailinglist_kernel@...oro.tk>,
        HelgeDeller@...blig.org, deller@....de
Cc:     Sam James <sam@...too.org>, linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Bisected stability regression in 6.6

* matoro (matoro_mailinglist_kernel@...oro.tk) wrote:
> On 2023-11-11 16:27, Sam James wrote:
> > Helge Deller <deller@....de> writes:
> > 
> > > On 11/11/23 07:31, matoro wrote:
> > > > Hi Helge, I have bisected a regression in 6.6 which is causing
> > > > userspace segfaults at a significantly increased rate in kernel 6.6.
> > > > There seems to be a pathological case triggered by the ninja build
> > > > tool.  The test case I have been using is cmake with ninja backend to
> > > > attempt to build the nghttp2 package.  In 6.6, this segfaults, not at
> > > > the same location every time, but with enough reliability that I was
> > > > able to use it as a bisection regression case, including immediately
> > > > after a reboot.  In the kernel log, these show up as "trap #15: Data
> > > > TLB miss fault" messages.  Now these messages can and do show up in
> > > > 6.5 causing segfaults, but never immediately after a reboot and
> > > > infrequently enough that the system is stable.  With kernel 6.6 I am
> > > > completely unable to build nghttp2 under any circumstances.
> > > > 
> > > > I have bisected this down to the following commit:
> > > > 
> > > > $ git bisect good
> > > > 3033cd4307681c60db6d08f398a64484b36e0b0f is the first bad commit
> > > > commit 3033cd4307681c60db6d08f398a64484b36e0b0f
> > > > Author: Helge Deller <deller@....de>
> > > > Date:   Sat Aug 19 00:53:28 2023 +0200
> > > > 
> > > >      parisc: Use generic mmap top-down layout and brk randomization
> > > > 
> > > >      parisc uses a top-down layout by default that exactly fits
> > > > the generic
> > > >      functions, so get rid of arch specific code and use the
> > > > generic version
> > > >      by selecting ARCH_WANT_DEFAULT_TOPDOWN_MMAP_LAYOUT.
> > > > 
> > > >      Note that on parisc the stack always grows up and a "unlimited stack"
> > > >      simply means that the value as defined in
> > > > CONFIG_STACK_MAX_DEFAULT_SIZE_MB
> > > >      should be used. So RLIM_INFINITY is not an indicator to use
> > > > the legacy
> > > >      memory layout.
> > > > 
> > > >      Signed-off-by: Helge Deller <deller@....de>
> > > > 
> > > >   arch/parisc/Kconfig             | 17 +++++++++++++
> > > >   arch/parisc/kernel/process.c    | 14 -----------
> > > >   arch/parisc/kernel/sys_parisc.c | 54
> > > > +----------------------------------------
> > > >   mm/util.c                       |  5 +++-
> > > >   4 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > Thanks for your report!
> > > I think it's quite unlikely that this patch introduces such a bad
> > > regression.
> > > I'd suspect some other bad commmit, but I'll try to reproduce.
> > 
> > matoro, does a revert apply cleanly? Does it help?
> 
> Yes, I just tested this and it cleanly reverts on linux-6.6.y and the revert
> does fix the issue.

Helge:
  In that patch is:

diff --git a/mm/util.c b/mm/util.c
index dd12b9531ac4c..8810206444977 100644
--- a/mm/util.c
+++ b/mm/util.c
@@ -396,7 +396,10 @@ static int mmap_is_legacy(struct rlimit *rlim_stack)
        if (current->personality & ADDR_COMPAT_LAYOUT)
                return 1;

-       if (rlim_stack->rlim_cur == RLIM_INFINITY)
+       /* On parisc the stack always grows up - so a unlimited stack should
+        * not be an indicator to use the legacy memory layout. */
+       if (rlim_stack->rlim_cur == RLIM_INFINITY &&
+               !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP))
                return 1;

        return sysctl_legacy_va_layout;

is that:
   '!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP))'

 the right way around?

That feels inverted to me;  non-parisc don't have that config
set, so !IS_ENABLED... is true,  so they return 1 instead of checking
the flag?

Dave

> > > 
> > > In any case, do you have CONFIG_BPF_JIT enabled? If so, could you try
> > > to reproduce with CONFIG_BPF_JIT disabled?
> > > The JIT is quite new in v6.6 and I did face some crashes and disabling
> > > it helped me so far.
> > > 
> > > > I have tried applying ad4aa06e1d92b06ed56c7240252927bd60632efe
> > > > ("parisc: Add nop instructions after TLB inserts") on top of 6.6, but
> > > > it does NOT fix the issue.
> > > 
> > > Ok.
> > > 
> > > Helge
-- 
 -----Open up your eyes, open up your mind, open up your code -------   
/ Dr. David Alan Gilbert    |       Running GNU/Linux       | Happy  \ 
\        dave @ treblig.org |                               | In Hex /
 \ _________________________|_____ http://www.treblig.org   |_______/