From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63917C433E0 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 19:14:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F80C216FD for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 19:14:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2392106AbhASTMs (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2021 14:12:48 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:45490 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728519AbhASSzJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2021 13:55:09 -0500 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5A9611B3; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 10:54:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.37.8.29] (unknown [10.37.8.29]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4ECF33F719; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 10:54:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] kasan: Add explicit preconditions to kasan_report() To: Andrey Konovalov Cc: Linux ARM , LKML , kasan-dev , Andrey Ryabinin , Alexander Potapenko , Dmitry Vyukov , Leon Romanovsky References: <20210119172607.18400-1-vincenzo.frascino@arm.com> From: Vincenzo Frascino Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 18:58:11 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Andrey, On 1/19/21 6:27 PM, Andrey Konovalov wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 6:26 PM Vincenzo Frascino > wrote: >> >> With the introduction of KASAN_HW_TAGS, kasan_report() dereferences >> the address passed as a parameter. >> >> Add a comment to make sure that the preconditions to the function are >> explicitly clarified. >> >> Note: An invalid address (e.g. NULL pointer address) passed to the >> function when, KASAN_HW_TAGS is enabled, leads to a kernel panic. >> >> Cc: Andrey Ryabinin >> Cc: Alexander Potapenko >> Cc: Dmitry Vyukov >> Cc: Leon Romanovsky >> Cc: Andrey Konovalov >> Signed-off-by: Vincenzo Frascino >> --- >> mm/kasan/report.c | 11 +++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/mm/kasan/report.c b/mm/kasan/report.c >> index c0fb21797550..2485b585004d 100644 >> --- a/mm/kasan/report.c >> +++ b/mm/kasan/report.c >> @@ -403,6 +403,17 @@ static void __kasan_report(unsigned long addr, size_t size, bool is_write, >> end_report(&flags); >> } >> >> +/** >> + * kasan_report - report kasan fault details >> + * @addr: valid address of the allocation where the tag fault was detected >> + * @size: size of the allocation where the tag fault was detected >> + * @is_write: the instruction that caused the fault was a read or write? >> + * @ip: pointer to the instruction that cause the fault >> + * >> + * Note: When CONFIG_KASAN_HW_TAGS is enabled kasan_report() dereferences >> + * the address to access the tags, hence it must be valid at this point in >> + * order to not cause a kernel panic. >> + */ > > It doesn't dereference the address, it just checks the tags, right? > This is correct, just realized that the use of "dereference" here is misleading. > Ideally, kasan_report() should survive that with HW_TAGS like with the > other modes. The reason it doesn't is probably because of a blank > addr_has_metadata() definition for HW_TAGS in mm/kasan/kasan.h. I > guess we should somehow check that the memory comes from page_alloc or > kmalloc. Or otherwise make sure that it has tags. Maybe there's an arm > instruction to check whether the memory has tags? > I agree, looking a second time at the code the problem comes from addr_has_metadata(): ... [ 18.127273] BUG: KASAN: invalid-access in 0x0 [ 18.128604] Read at addr 0000000000000000 by task swapper/0/1 [ 18.130311] Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 0000000000000000 [ 18.131291] Mem abort info: [ 18.131696] ESR = 0x96000004 [ 18.132169] EC = 0x25: DABT (current EL), IL = 32 bits [ 18.132953] SET = 0, FnV = 0 [ 18.133433] EA = 0, S1PTW = 0 [ 18.133907] Data abort info: [ 18.134308] ISV = 0, ISS = 0x00000004 [ 18.134883] CM = 0, WnR = 0 [ 18.135436] [0000000000000000] user address but active_mm is swapper [ 18.136372] Internal error: Oops: 96000004 [#1] PREEMPT SMP [ 18.137280] Modules linked in: [ 18.138182] CPU: 2 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.11.0-rc4-00007-g86cba71f117-dirty #2 [ 18.139275] Hardware name: QEMU QEMU Virtual Machine, BIOS 0.0.0 02/06/2015 [ 18.140342] pstate: 60400085 (nZCv daIf +PAN -UAO -TCO BTYPE=--) [ 18.141324] pc : mte_get_mem_tag+0x24/0x40 [ 18.142487] lr : print_tags+0x1c/0x40 [ 18.143095] sp : ffff80001004bcf0 [ 18.143570] x29: ffff80001004bcf0 x28: 0000000000000000 [ 18.144526] x27: ffffd042f0bf04e0 x26: ffffd042f0ca1068 [ 18.145369] x25: ffffd042f0bdde58 x24: ffffd042f1458000 [ 18.146209] x23: 0000000000000000 x22: 0000000000000000 [ 18.147047] x21: 0000000000000000 x20: 0000000000000000 [ 18.147928] x19: 0000000000000000 x18: ffffffffffffffff [ 18.148928] x17: 000000000000000e x16: 0000000000000001 [ 18.149837] x15: ffff80009004ba17 x14: 0000000000000006 [ 18.150774] x13: ffffd042f11b27e0 x12: 0000000000000399 [ 18.151653] x11: 0000000000000133 x10: ffffd042f11b27e0 [ 18.152544] x9 : ffffd042f11b27e0 x8 : 00000000ffffefff [ 18.153443] x7 : ffffd042f120a7e0 x6 : ffffd042f120a7e0 [ 18.154272] x5 : 000000000000bff4 x4 : 0000000000000000 [ 18.155096] x3 : 0000000000000000 x2 : 0000000000000000 [ 18.155958] x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : 0000000000000000 [ 18.157145] Call trace: [ 18.157615] mte_get_mem_tag+0x24/0x40 [ 18.158258] kasan_report+0xec/0x1b0 ... I noticed it differently but you can easily reproduce it calling kasan_report(0,0,0,0); from somewhere. I will send a patch tomorrow that checks if the memory comes from page_alloc or kmalloc. Not sure what you mean for "instruction to check whether the memory has tags". Thanks! -- Regards, Vincenzo