On 15/03/2021 11:52, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 12:30 PM Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 14/03/2021 11:03, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 11:01 AM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 7:28 PM syzbot
<syzbot+c23c5421600e9b454849@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello,
syzbot found the following issue on:
HEAD commit: 0d7588ab riscv: process: Fix no prototype for arch_dup_tas..
git tree: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/riscv/linux.git fixes
console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=122c343ad00000
kernel config: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=e3c595255fb2d136
dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=c23c5421600e9b454849
userspace arch: riscv64
Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this issue yet.
IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the commit:
Reported-by: syzbot+c23c5421600e9b454849@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
+riscv maintainers
Another case of put_user crashing.
There are 58 crashes in sock_ioctl already. Somehow there is a very
significant skew towards crashing with this "user memory without
uaccess routines" in schedule_tail and sock_ioctl of all places in the
kernel that use put_user... This looks very strange... Any ideas
what's special about these 2 locations?
I could imagine if such a crash happens after a previous stack
overflow and now task data structures are corrupted. But f_getown does
not look like a function that consumes way more than other kernel
syscalls...
The last crash I looked at suggested somehow put_user got re-entered
with the user protection turned back on. Either there is a path through
one of the kernel handlers where this happens or there's something
weird going on with qemu.
Is there any kind of tracking/reporting that would help to localize
it? I could re-reproduce with that code.
I'm not sure. I will have a go at debugging on qemu today just to make
sure I can reproduce here before I have to go into the office and fix
my Icicle board for real hardware tests.
I think my first plan post reproduction is to stuff some trace points
into the fault handlers to see if we can get a idea of faults being
processed, etc.
Maybe also add a check in the fault handler to see if the fault was
in a fixable region and post an error if that happens / maybe retry
the instruction with the relevant SR_SUM flag set.
Hopefully tomorrow I can get a run on real hardware to confirm.
Would have been better if the Unmatched board I ordered last year
would turn up.
--
Ben Dooks http://www.codethink.co.uk/
Senior Engineer Codethink - Providing Genius
https://www.codethink.co.uk/privacy.html
