On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 4:09 AM, Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
> [Cc'ing the relevant folks]
>
> Breno Leitao <lei...@debian.org> writes:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Kernel 4.12-rc1 is showing a bug when I try it on a POWER8 virtual
>> machine. Justing SSHing into the machine causes this issue.
>>
>> [23.138124] usercopy: kernel memory overwrite attempt detected to
>> d000000003d80030 (mm_struct) (560 bytes)
>> [23.138195] ------------[ cut here ]------------
>> [23.138229] kernel BUG at mm/usercopy.c:72!
>> [23.138252] Oops: Exception in kernel mode, sig: 5 [#3]
>> [23.138280] SMP NR_CPUS=2048
>> [23.138280] NUMA
>> [23.138302] pSeries
>> [23.138330] Modules linked in:
>> [23.138354] CPU: 4 PID: 2215 Comm: sshd Tainted: G D
>> 4.12.0-rc1+ #9
>> [23.138395] task: c0000001e272dc00 task.stack: c0000001e27b0000
>> [23.138430] NIP: c000000000342358 LR: c000000000342354 CTR:
>> c0000000006eb060
>> [23.138472] REGS: c0000001e27b3a00 TRAP: 0700 Tainted: G D
>> (4.12.0-rc1+)
>> [23.138513] MSR: 8000000000029033 <SF,EE,ME,IR,DR,RI,LE>
>> [23.138517] CR: 28004222 XER: 20000000
>> [23.138565] CFAR: c000000000b34500 SOFTE: 1
>> [23.138565] GPR00: c000000000342354 c0000001e27b3c80 c00000000142a000
>> 000000000000005e
>> [23.138565] GPR04: c0000001ffe0ade8 c0000001ffe21bf8 2920283536302062
>> 79746573290d0a74
>> [23.138565] GPR08: 0000000000000007 c000000000f61864 00000001feeb0000
>> 3064206f74206465
>> [23.138565] GPR12: 0000000000004400 c00000000fb42600 0000000000000015
>> 00000000545bdc40
>> [23.138565] GPR16: 00000000545c49c8 000001000b4b8890 00007ffff78c26f0
>> 00000000545cf000
>> [23.138565] GPR20: 00000000546109c8 000000000000c7e8 0000000054610010
>> 00007ffff78c22e8
>> [23.138565] GPR24: 00000000545c8c40 c0000000ff6bcef0 c0000000001e5220
>> 0000000000000230
>> [23.138565] GPR28: d000000003d80260 0000000000000000 0000000000000230
>> d000000003d80030
>> [23.138920] NIP [c000000000342358] __check_object_size+0x88/0x2d0
>> [23.138956] LR [c000000000342354] __check_object_size+0x84/0x2d0
>> [23.138990] Call Trace:
>> [23.139006] [c0000001e27b3c80] [c000000000342354]
>> __check_object_size+0x84/0x2d0 (unreliable)
>> [23.139056] [c0000001e27b3d00] [c0000000009f5ba8]
>> bpf_prog_create_from_user+0xa8/0x1a0
>> [23.139099] [c0000001e27b3d60] [c0000000001e5d30]
>> do_seccomp+0x120/0x720
>> [23.139136] [c0000001e27b3dd0] [c0000000000fd53c] SyS_prctl+0x2ac/0x6b0
>> [23.139172] [c0000001e27b3e30] [c00000000000af84] system_call+0x38/0xe0
>> [23.139218] Instruction dump:
>> [23.139240] 60000000 60420000 3c82ff94 3ca2ff9d 38841788 38a5e868
>> 3c62ff95 7fc8f378
>> [23.139283] 7fe6fb78 386310c0 487f2169 60000000 <0fe00000> 60420000
>> 2ba30010 409d018c
>> [23.139328] ---[ end trace 1a1dc952a4b7c4af ]---
>>
>> I found that kernel 4.11 does not have this issue. I also found that, if
>> I revert 517e1fbeb65f5eade8d14f46ac365db6c75aea9b, I do not see the
>> problem.
>>
>> On the other side, if I cherry-pick commit
>> 517e1fbeb65f5eade8d14f46ac365db6c75aea9b into 4.11, I start seeing the
>> same issue also on 4.11.
>
> Yeah it looks like powerpc also suffers from the same bug that arm64
> used to, ie. virt_addr_valid() will return true for some vmalloc
> addresses.
>
> virt_addr_valid() is used pretty widely, I'm not sure if we can just fix
> it without other fallout. I'll dig a bit more tomorrow if no one beats
> me to it.
>
> Kees, depending on how that turns out we may ask you to revert
> 517e1fbeb65f ("mm/usercopy: Drop extra is_vmalloc_or_module() check").
That's fine by me. Let me know what you think would be best.
Laura, I don't see much harm in putting this back in place. It seems
like it's just a matter of efficiency to have it removed?
-Kees
--
Kees Cook
Pixel Security
