On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 07:08:46PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 1. The faulty addresses are all near 0000000100000000, with one exception
> > of null (which is the most recent one)
>
> Well, they're at 8(%rax), except for that last case.
0x10(%rax)?
> And in every case (_including_ that last case), %rax has a very
> interesting pattern.. That's the (bad) buf->ops pointer that was
> loaded from the somehow corrupted "buf".
> So _if_ this is some kind of use-after-free thing, and the allocation
> got re-used for something else, that might just be related to whatever
> ends up being the offset that is filled in with the (int) error
> number.
>
> Except the offset is that %r12*0x28+0x10, so we're talking a byte
> offset of 330 bytes into the allocation, and apparently the eight
> previous (0-7) iterations were fine.
>
> Which is really odd.
I wonder what pipe->buffers is equal to here...
> I'm not seeing anything that makes sense. I'll have to think about this.
>
> I'm assuming you don't have slub debugging enabled, and no way to
> enable it and try to catch this?
FWIW, I would try to slap
if (buf->ops && (unsigned long)buf->ops <= 0xffffffff)
dump the living hell out of that thing
and see what it catches...
