netdev - Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 33502] New: Caught 64-bit read from uninitialized memory in __alloc

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: <1303290464.3186.32.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date:	Wed, 20 Apr 2011 11:07:44 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc:	casteyde.christian@...e.fr, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, bugzilla-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org,
	bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org,
	Vegard Nossum <vegardno@....uio.no>
Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 33502] New: Caught 64-bit read from
 uninitialized memory in __alloc_skb


I had one splat (before applying any patch), adding CONFIG_PREEMPT to my
build :

[   84.629936] WARNING: kmemcheck: Caught 64-bit read from uninitialized memory (ffff88011a7376f0)
[   84.629939] 5868ba1a0188ffff5868ba1a0188ffff7078731a0188ffffe0e1181a0188ffff
[   84.629952]  i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u
[   84.629963]                                  ^
[   84.629964] 
[   84.629966] Pid: 2060, comm: 05-wait_for_sys Not tainted 2.6.39-rc4-00237-ge3de956-dirty #550 HP ProLiant BL460c G6
[   84.629969] RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff810f0e80>]  [<ffffffff810f0e80>] kmem_cache_alloc+0x50/0x190
[   84.629977] RSP: 0018:ffff88011a0b9988  EFLAGS: 00010286
[   84.629979] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff88011a739a98 RCX: 0000000000620780
[   84.629980] RDX: 0000000000620740 RSI: 0000000000017400 RDI: ffffffff810db8f5
[   84.629982] RBP: ffff88011a0b99b8 R08: ffff88011a261dd8 R09: 0000000000000009
[   84.629983] R10: 0000000000000002 R11: ffff88011fffce00 R12: ffff88011b00a600
[   84.629985] R13: ffff88011a7376f0 R14: 00000000000000d0 R15: ffff88011abbb0c0
[   84.629987] FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88011fc00000(0063) knlGS:00000000f76ff6c0
[   84.629989] CS:  0010 DS: 002b ES: 002b CR0: 000000008005003b
[   84.629991] CR2: ffff88011998dab8 CR3: 000000011a13f000 CR4: 00000000000006f0
[   84.629992] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
[   84.629994] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000ffff4ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
[   84.629995]  [<ffffffff810db8f5>] anon_vma_prepare+0x55/0x190
[   84.630000]  [<ffffffff810cfe90>] handle_pte_fault+0x470/0x6e0
[   84.630002]  [<ffffffff810d1654>] handle_mm_fault+0x124/0x1a0
[   84.630005]  [<ffffffff8147a510>] do_page_fault+0x160/0x560
[   84.630008]  [<ffffffff81477fcf>] page_fault+0x1f/0x30
[   84.630013]  [<ffffffff810b31f8>] generic_file_aio_read+0x528/0x740
[   84.630017]  [<ffffffff810f5461>] do_sync_read+0xd1/0x110
[   84.630021]  [<ffffffff810f5c36>] vfs_read+0xc6/0x160
[   84.630023]  [<ffffffff810f60b0>] sys_read+0x50/0x90
[   84.630025]  [<ffffffff8147f4e9>] sysenter_dispatch+0x7/0x27
[   84.630030]  [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff

ffffffff810f0e6d:       0f 84 b5 00 00 00       je     ffffffff810f0f28 <kmem_cache_alloc+0xf8>
ffffffff810f0e73:       49 63 44 24 20          movslq 0x20(%r12),%rax
ffffffff810f0e78:       48 8d 4a 40             lea    0x40(%rdx),%rcx
ffffffff810f0e7c:       49 8b 34 24             mov    (%r12),%rsi
>>ffffffff810f0e80:       49 8b 5c 05 00          mov    0x0(%r13,%rax,1),%rbx
ffffffff810f0e85:       4c 89 e8                mov    %r13,%rax
ffffffff810f0e88:       e8 83 19 0e 00          callq  ffffffff811d2810 <this_cpu_cmpxchg16b_emu>
ffffffff810f0e8d:       0f 1f 40 00             nopl   0x0(%rax)
ffffffff810f0e91:       84 c0                   test   %al,%al
ffffffff810f0e93:       74 c1                   je     ffffffff810f0e56 <kmem_cache_alloc+0x26>


So this is definitely the access to object->next that triggers the fault.

Problem is : my (2nd) patch only reduces the window of occurrence of the bug, since we can
be preempted/interrupted between the kmemcheck_mark_initialized() and access to object->next :

The preempt/irq could allocate the object and free it again.

So KMEMCHECK would require us to block IRQ to be safe.

Then, just disable SLUB_CMPXCHG_DOUBLE if KMEMCHECK is defined, as I did in my first patch.

Christoph, please reconsider first version of patch (disabling SLUB_CMPXCHG_DOUBLE if
either KMEMCHECK or DEBUG_PAGEALLOC is defined)

Thanks


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html