linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] unwind, arm64: add sframe unwinder for kernel

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: <20250212234946.yuskayyu4gx3ul7m@jpoimboe>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 15:49:46 -0800
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
To: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
Cc: Weinan Liu <wnliu@...gle.com>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Indu Bhagat <indu.bhagat@...cle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev,
	Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
	linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	live-patching@...r.kernel.org, joe.lawrence@...hat.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	Puranjay Mohan <puranjay@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] unwind, arm64: add sframe unwinder for kernel

On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 03:32:40PM -0800, Song Liu wrote:
> [   81.250437] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> [   81.250818] refcount_t: saturated; leaking memory.
> [   81.251201] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 95 at lib/refcount.c:22
> refcount_warn_saturate+0x6c/0x140
> [   81.251841] Modules linked in: livepatch_special_static(OEK)
> [   81.252277] CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 95 Comm: bash Tainted: G
> OE K    6.13.2-00321-g52d2813b4b07 #49
> [   81.253003] Tainted: [O]=OOT_MODULE, [E]=UNSIGNED_MODULE, [K]=LIVEPATCH
> [   81.253503] Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
> [   81.253856] pstate: 634000c5 (nZCv daIF +PAN -UAO +TCO +DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
> [   81.254383] pc : refcount_warn_saturate+0x6c/0x140
> [   81.254748] lr : refcount_warn_saturate+0x6c/0x140
> [   81.255114] sp : ffff800085a6fc00
> [   81.255371] x29: ffff800085a6fc00 x28: 0000000001200000 x27: ffff0000c2966180
> [   81.255918] x26: 0000000000000000 x25: ffff8000829c0000 x24: ffff0000c2e9b608
> [   81.256462] x23: ffff800083351000 x22: ffff0000c2e9af80 x21: ffff0000c062e140
> [   81.257006] x20: ffff0000c1c10c00 x19: ffff800085a6fd80 x18: ffffffffffffffff
> [   81.257544] x17: 0000000000000001 x16: ffffffffffffffff x15: 0000000000000006
> [   81.258083] x14: 0000000000000000 x13: 2e79726f6d656d20 x12: 676e696b61656c20
> [   81.258625] x11: ffff8000829f7d70 x10: 0000000000000147 x9 : ffff8000801546b4
> [   81.259165] x8 : 00000000fffeffff x7 : 00000000ffff0000 x6 : ffff800082f77d70
> [   81.259709] x5 : 80000000ffff0000 x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 : 0000000000000001
> [   81.260257] x2 : ffff8000829f7a88 x1 : ffff8000829f7a88 x0 : 0000000000000026
> [   81.260824] Call trace:
> [   81.261015]  refcount_warn_saturate+0x6c/0x140 (P)
> [   81.261387]  __refcount_add.constprop.0+0x60/0x70
> [   81.261748]  copy_process+0xfdc/0xfd58 [livepatch_special_static]

Does that copy_process+0xfdc/0xfd58 resolve to this line in
copy_process()?

			refcount_inc(&current->signal->sigcnt);

Maybe the klp rela reference to 'current' is bogus, or resolving to the
wrong address somehow?

-- 
Josh