mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Re: Crashes in linux-next on powerpc with CONFIG_PPC_KUAP and CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL_FEATURE_CHECK_DEBUG
       [not found] <87k1f2wc04.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
@ 2019-05-09  9:29 ` Petr Mladek
  2019-05-09 14:42   ` Michael Ellerman
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Petr Mladek @ 2019-05-09  9:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Michael Ellerman
  Cc: linuxppc-dev, Russell Currey, Christophe Leroy, Stephen Rothwell,
	linux-kernel, Linus Torvalds

On Wed 2019-05-08 00:54:51, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> Just an FYI in case anyone else is seeing crashes very early in boot in
> linux-next with the above config options.
>
> The problem is the combination of some new code called via printk(),
> check_pointer() which calls probe_kernel_read(). That then calls 
> allow_user_access() (PPC_KUAP) and that uses mmu_has_feature() too early
> (before we've patched features). With the JUMP_LABEL debug enabled that
> causes us to call printk() & dump_stack() and we end up recursing and
> overflowing the stack.

Sigh, the check_pointer() stuff is in Linus's tree now, see
the commit 3e5903eb9cff707301712 ("vsprintf: Prevent crash when
dereferencing invalid pointers").

> Because it happens so early you don't get any output, just an apparently
> dead system.
> 
> The stack trace (which you don't see) is something like:
> 
>   ...
>   dump_stack+0xdc
>   probe_kernel_read+0x1a4
>   check_pointer+0x58
>   string+0x3c
>   vsnprintf+0x1bc
>   vscnprintf+0x20
>   printk_safe_log_store+0x7c
>   printk+0x40
>   dump_stack_print_info+0xbc
>   dump_stack+0x8
>   probe_kernel_read+0x1a4
>   probe_kernel_read+0x19c
>   check_pointer+0x58
>   string+0x3c
>   vsnprintf+0x1bc
>   vscnprintf+0x20
>   vprintk_store+0x6c
>   vprintk_emit+0xec
>   vprintk_func+0xd4
>   printk+0x40
>   cpufeatures_process_feature+0xc8
>   scan_cpufeatures_subnodes+0x380
>   of_scan_flat_dt_subnodes+0xb4
>   dt_cpu_ftrs_scan_callback+0x158
>   of_scan_flat_dt+0xf0
>   dt_cpu_ftrs_scan+0x3c
>   early_init_devtree+0x360
>   early_setup+0x9c
> 
> 
> The simple fix is to use early_mmu_has_feature() in allow_user_access(),
> but we'd rather not do that because it penalises all
> copy_to/from_users() for the life of the system with the cost of the
> runtime check vs the jump label. The irony is probe_kernel_read()
> shouldn't be allowing user access at all, because we're reading the
> kernel not userspace.

I have tried to find a lightweight way for a safe reading of unknown
kernel pointer. But I have not succeeded so far. I see only variants
with user access. The user access is handled in arch-specific code
and I do not see any variant without it.

I am not sure on which level it should get fixed.

Could you please send it to lkml to get a wider audience?

Best Regards,
Petr

> For now if you're hitting it just turn off 
> CONFIG_PPC_KUAP and/or CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL_FEATURE_CHECK_DEBUG.
> 
> cheers

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

* Re: Crashes in linux-next on powerpc with CONFIG_PPC_KUAP and CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL_FEATURE_CHECK_DEBUG
  2019-05-09  9:29 ` Crashes in linux-next on powerpc with CONFIG_PPC_KUAP and CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL_FEATURE_CHECK_DEBUG Petr Mladek
@ 2019-05-09 14:42   ` Michael Ellerman
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Michael Ellerman @ 2019-05-09 14:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Petr Mladek
  Cc: linuxppc-dev, Russell Currey, Christophe Leroy, Stephen Rothwell,
	linux-kernel, Linus Torvalds

Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> writes:
> On Wed 2019-05-08 00:54:51, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>> 
>> Just an FYI in case anyone else is seeing crashes very early in boot in
>> linux-next with the above config options.
>>
>> The problem is the combination of some new code called via printk(),
>> check_pointer() which calls probe_kernel_read(). That then calls 
>> allow_user_access() (PPC_KUAP) and that uses mmu_has_feature() too early
>> (before we've patched features). With the JUMP_LABEL debug enabled that
>> causes us to call printk() & dump_stack() and we end up recursing and
>> overflowing the stack.
>
> Sigh, the check_pointer() stuff is in Linus's tree now, see
> the commit 3e5903eb9cff707301712 ("vsprintf: Prevent crash when
> dereferencing invalid pointers").

No worries.

>> Because it happens so early you don't get any output, just an apparently
>> dead system.
>> 
>> The stack trace (which you don't see) is something like:
>> 
>>   ...
>>   dump_stack+0xdc
>>   probe_kernel_read+0x1a4
>>   check_pointer+0x58
>>   string+0x3c
>>   vsnprintf+0x1bc
>>   vscnprintf+0x20
>>   printk_safe_log_store+0x7c
>>   printk+0x40
>>   dump_stack_print_info+0xbc
>>   dump_stack+0x8
>>   probe_kernel_read+0x1a4
>>   probe_kernel_read+0x19c
>>   check_pointer+0x58
>>   string+0x3c
>>   vsnprintf+0x1bc
>>   vscnprintf+0x20
>>   vprintk_store+0x6c
>>   vprintk_emit+0xec
>>   vprintk_func+0xd4
>>   printk+0x40
>>   cpufeatures_process_feature+0xc8
>>   scan_cpufeatures_subnodes+0x380
>>   of_scan_flat_dt_subnodes+0xb4
>>   dt_cpu_ftrs_scan_callback+0x158
>>   of_scan_flat_dt+0xf0
>>   dt_cpu_ftrs_scan+0x3c
>>   early_init_devtree+0x360
>>   early_setup+0x9c
>> 
>> 
>> The simple fix is to use early_mmu_has_feature() in allow_user_access(),
>> but we'd rather not do that because it penalises all
>> copy_to/from_users() for the life of the system with the cost of the
>> runtime check vs the jump label. The irony is probe_kernel_read()
>> shouldn't be allowing user access at all, because we're reading the
>> kernel not userspace.
>
> I have tried to find a lightweight way for a safe reading of unknown
> kernel pointer. But I have not succeeded so far. I see only variants
> with user access. The user access is handled in arch-specific code
> and I do not see any variant without it.
>
> I am not sure on which level it should get fixed.

I sent a fix in powerpc code (sorry might have forgot to Cc you):

  https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1097015/

I've merged that into the powerpc tree. I think it's too subtle for us
to have an ordering requirement that deep in the user copy code, it was
just a matter of time before it caused a problem, you were just unlucky
it was your patch that did :)

We'll eventually switch it back to using a jump label but make it safe
to call early in boot before we've detected features.

> Could you please send it to lkml to get a wider audience?

I see you also sent a fix, that looks like a safe default to me.

But as I said I'm happy with the powerpc fix, so there's no requirement
from us that your fix get merged.

cheers

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2019-05-09 14:42 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
     [not found] <87k1f2wc04.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
2019-05-09  9:29 ` Crashes in linux-next on powerpc with CONFIG_PPC_KUAP and CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL_FEATURE_CHECK_DEBUG Petr Mladek
2019-05-09 14:42   ` Michael Ellerman

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®