| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <ZmJj5C4gz+gT9C4m@fedora>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2024 09:35:32 +0800
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
To: yebin <yebin@...weicloud.com>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ye Bin <yebin10@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: bio-integrity: fix potential null-ptr-deref in
bio_integrity_free
On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 09:32:29AM +0800, yebin wrote:
>
>
> On 2024/6/7 8:13, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 02:26:55PM +0800, Ye Bin wrote:
> > > From: Ye Bin <yebin10@...wei.com>
> > >
> > > There's a issue as follows when do format NVME with IO:
> > > BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000008
> > > PGD 101727f067 P4D 1011fae067 PUD fbed78067 PMD 0
> > > Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP NOPTI
> > > RIP: 0010:kfree+0x4f/0x160
> > > RSP: 0018:ff705a800912b910 EFLAGS: 00010247
> > > RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0d06d30000000000 RCX: ff4fb320260ad990
> > > RDX: ff4fb30ee7acba40 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: 00b04cff80000000
> > > RBP: ff4fb30ee7acba40 R08: 0000000000000200 R09: ff705a800912bb60
> > > R10: 0000000000000000 R11: ff4fb3103b67c750 R12: ffffffff9a62d566
> > > R13: ff4fb30aa0530000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 000000000000000a
> > > FS: 00007f4399b6b700(0000) GS:ff4fb31040140000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> > > CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> > > CR2: 0000000000000008 CR3: 0000001014cd4002 CR4: 0000000000761ee0
> > > DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> > > DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe07f0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> > > PKRU: 55555554
> > > Call Trace:
> > > bio_integrity_free+0xa6/0xb0
> > > __bio_integrity_endio+0x8c/0xa0
> > > bio_endio+0x2b/0x130
> > > blk_update_request+0x78/0x2b0
> > > blk_mq_end_request+0x1a/0x140
> > > blk_mq_try_issue_directly+0x5d/0xc0
> > > blk_mq_make_request+0x46b/0x540
> > > generic_make_request+0x121/0x300
> > > submit_bio+0x6c/0x140
> > > __blkdev_direct_IO_simple+0x1ca/0x3a0
> > > blkdev_direct_IO+0x3d9/0x460
> > > generic_file_read_iter+0xb4/0xc60
> > > new_sync_read+0x121/0x170
> > > vfs_read+0x89/0x130
> > > ksys_read+0x52/0xc0
> > > do_syscall_64+0x5d/0x1d0
> > > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x65/0xca
> > >
> > > Assuming a 512 byte directIO is issued, the initial logical block size of
> > > the state block device is 512 bytes, and then modified to 4096 bytes.
> > > Above issue may happen as follows:
> > > Direct read format NVME
> > > __blkdev_direct_IO_simple(iocb, iter, nr_pages);
> > > if ((pos | iov_iter_alignment(iter)) & (bdev_logical_block_size(bdev) - 1))
> > > -->The logical block size is 512, and the IO issued is 512 bytes,
> > > which can be checked
> > > return -EINVAL;
> > > submit_bio(&bio);
> > > nvme_dev_ioctl
> > > case NVME_IOCTL_RESCAN:
> > > nvme_queue_scan(ctrl);
> > > ...
> > > nvme_update_disk_info(disk, ns, id);
> > > blk_queue_logical_block_size(disk->queue, bs);
> > > --> 512->4096
> > > blk_queue_enter(q, flags)
> > > blk_mq_make_request(q, bio)
> > > bio_integrity_prep(bio)
> > > len = bio_integrity_bytes(bi, bio_sectors(bio));
> > > -->At this point, because the logical block size has increased to
> > > 4096 bytes, the calculated 'len' here is 0
> > > buf = kmalloc(len, GFP_NOIO | q->bounce_gfp);
> > > -->Passed in len=0 and returned buf=16
> > > end = (((unsigned long) buf) + len + PAGE_SIZE - 1) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > > start = ((unsigned long) buf) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > > nr_pages = end - start; -->nr_pages == 1
> > > bip->bip_flags |= BIP_BLOCK_INTEGRITY;
> > > for (i = 0 ; i < nr_pages ; i++) {
> > > if (len <= 0)
> > > -->Not initializing the bip_vec of bio_integrity, will result
> > > in null pointer access during subsequent releases. Even if
> > > initialized, it will still cause subsequent releases access
> > > null pointer because the buffer address is incorrect.
> > > break;
> > >
> > > Firstly, it is unreasonable to format NVME in the presence of IO. It is also
> > > possible to see IO smaller than the logical block size in the block layer for
> > > this type of concurrency. It is expected that this type of IO device will
> > > return an error, so exception handling should also be done for this type of
> > > IO to prevent null pointer access from causing system crashes.
> > Actually unaligned IO handling is one mess for nvme hardware. Yes, IO may fail,
> > but it is observed that meta buffer is overwrite by DMA in read IO.
> >
> > Ye and Yi, can you test the following patch in your 'nvme format' & IO workload?
> >
> >
> > diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
> > index 82c3ae22d76d..a41ab4a3a398 100644
> > --- a/block/blk-core.c
> > +++ b/block/blk-core.c
> > @@ -336,6 +336,19 @@ int blk_queue_enter(struct request_queue *q, blk_mq_req_flags_t flags)
> > return 0;
> > }
> > +static bool bio_unaligned(struct bio *bio)
> > +{
> > + unsigned int bs = bdev_logical_block_size(bio->bi_bdev);
> > +
> > + if (bio->bi_iter.bi_size & (bs - 1))
> > + return true;
> > +
> > + if ((bio->bi_iter.bi_sector << SECTOR_SHIFT) & (bs - 1))
> > + return true;
> > +
> > + return false;
> > +}
> I think this judgment is a bit incorrect. It should not be sufficient to
> only determine whether
> the length and starting sector are logically block aligned.
Can you explain why the two are not enough? Other limits should be handled
by bio split.
Thanks,
Ming
Powered by blists - more mailing lists