From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [bug] pwritev02 hang on s390x with 4.8.0-rc7
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 16:06:57 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160920150657.GN2356@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <57E131E6.1090507@redhat.com>
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:56:06PM +0200, Jan Stancek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm hitting a regression with LTP's pwritev02 [1] on s390x with 4.8.0-rc7.
> Specifically the EFAULT case, which is passing an iovec with invalid base address:
> #define CHUNK 64
> static struct iovec wr_iovec3[] = {
> {(char *)-1, CHUNK},
> };
> hangs with 100% cpu usage and not very helpful stack trace:
> # cat /proc/28544/stack
> [<0000000000001000>] 0x1000
> [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
>
> The problem starts with d4690f1e1cda "fix iov_iter_fault_in_readable()".
>
> Before this commit fault_in_pages_readable() called __get_user() on start
> address which presumably failed with -EFAULT immediately.
>
> With this commit applied fault_in_multipages_readable() appears to return 0
> for the case when "start" is invalid but "end" overflows. Then according to
> my traces we keep spinning inside while loop in iomap_write_actor().
Cute. Let me see if I understand what's going on there: we have a wraparound
that would've been caught by most of access_ok(), but not on an architectures
where access_ok() is a no-op; in that case the loop is skipped and we
just check the last address, which passes and we get a false positive.
Bug is real and it's definitely -stable fodder.
I'm not sure that the fix you propose is right, though. Note that ERR_PTR()
is not a valid address on any architecture, so any wraparound automatically
means -EFAULT and we can simply check unlikely(uaddr > end) and bugger off
if it holds. while() turns into do-while(), of course, and the same is
needed for the read side.
Could you check if the following works for you?
diff --git a/include/linux/pagemap.h b/include/linux/pagemap.h
index 66a1260..7e3d537 100644
--- a/include/linux/pagemap.h
+++ b/include/linux/pagemap.h
@@ -571,56 +571,56 @@ static inline int fault_in_pages_readable(const char __user *uaddr, int size)
*/
static inline int fault_in_multipages_writeable(char __user *uaddr, int size)
{
- int ret = 0;
char __user *end = uaddr + size - 1;
if (unlikely(size == 0))
- return ret;
+ return 0;
+ if (unlikely(uaddr > end))
+ return -EFAULT;
/*
* Writing zeroes into userspace here is OK, because we know that if
* the zero gets there, we'll be overwriting it.
*/
- while (uaddr <= end) {
- ret = __put_user(0, uaddr);
- if (ret != 0)
- return ret;
+ do {
+ if (unlikely(__put_user(0, uaddr) != 0))
+ return -EFAULT;
uaddr += PAGE_SIZE;
- }
+ } while (uaddr <= end);
/* Check whether the range spilled into the next page. */
if (((unsigned long)uaddr & PAGE_MASK) ==
((unsigned long)end & PAGE_MASK))
- ret = __put_user(0, end);
+ return __put_user(0, end);
- return ret;
+ return 0;
}
static inline int fault_in_multipages_readable(const char __user *uaddr,
int size)
{
volatile char c;
- int ret = 0;
const char __user *end = uaddr + size - 1;
if (unlikely(size == 0))
- return ret;
+ return 0;
- while (uaddr <= end) {
- ret = __get_user(c, uaddr);
- if (ret != 0)
- return ret;
+ if (unlikely(uaddr > end))
+ return -EFAULT;
+
+ do {
+ if (unlikely(__get_user(c, uaddr) != 0))
+ return -EFAULT;
uaddr += PAGE_SIZE;
- }
+ } while (uaddr <= end);
/* Check whether the range spilled into the next page. */
if (((unsigned long)uaddr & PAGE_MASK) ==
((unsigned long)end & PAGE_MASK)) {
- ret = __get_user(c, end);
- (void)c;
+ return __get_user(c, end);
}
- return ret;
+ return 0;
}
int add_to_page_cache_locked(struct page *page, struct address_space *mapping,
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-20 15:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-20 12:56 Jan Stancek
2016-09-20 15:06 ` Al Viro [this message]
2016-09-20 17:11 ` Jan Stancek
2016-09-20 17:30 ` Al Viro
2016-09-20 19:07 ` [PATCH] fix fault_in_multipages_...() on architectures with no-op access_ok() Al Viro
2016-09-20 20:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-09-20 20:38 ` Al Viro
2016-09-20 20:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-09-20 21:03 ` Al Viro
2016-09-20 21:37 ` Al Viro
2016-09-20 23:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-09-21 0:38 ` Al Viro
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160920150657.GN2356@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=jstancek@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome