On 09/09, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 6:37 PM <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 09/08, syzbot wrote:
> > Hello,
>
> > syzbot found the following issue on:
>
> > HEAD commit: 7e18e42e4b28 Linux 6.0-rc4
> > git tree: upstream
> > console+strace:
https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=1551da55080000
> > kernel config:
https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=f4d613baa509128c
> > dashboard link:
> > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=8b2a08dfbd25fd933d75
> > compiler: gcc (Debian 10.2.1-6) 10.2.1 20210110, GNU ld (GNU
> > Binutils for Debian) 2.35.2
> > syz repro:
https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.syz?x=1798cab7080000
> > C reproducer:
https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=16ccbdc5080000
>
> > Downloadable assets:
> > disk image:
> >
https://storage.googleapis.com/syzbot-assets/da260c675b46/disk-7e18e42e.raw.xz
> > vmlinux:
> >
https://storage.googleapis.com/syzbot-assets/58f7bbbaa6ff/vmlinux-7e18e42e.xz
>
> > IMPORTANT: if you fix the issue, please add the following tag to the
> > commit:
> > Reported-by: syzbot+8b2a08dfbd25fd933d75@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> > ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > verifier log line truncated - local buffer too short
> > WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 3604 at kernel/bpf/verifier.c:300
> > bpf_verifier_vlog+0x267/0x3c0 kernel/bpf/verifier.c:300
> > Modules linked in:
> > CPU: 1 PID: 3604 Comm: syz-executor146 Not tainted
6.0.0-rc4-syzkaller #0
> > Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine,
BIOS
> > Google 08/26/2022
> > RIP: 0010:bpf_verifier_vlog+0x267/0x3c0 kernel/bpf/verifier.c:300
> > Code: f5 95 3d 0c 31 ff 89 ee e8 06 07 f0 ff 40 84 ed 75 1a e8 7c 0a
f0
> > ff 48 c7 c7 c0 e7 f3 89 c6 05 d4 95 3d 0c 01 e8 fb 4c ae 07 <0f> 0b
e8 62
> > 0a f0 ff 48 89 da 48 b8 00 00 00 00 00 fc ff df 48 c1
> > RSP: 0018:ffffc900039bf8a0 EFLAGS: 00010282
> > RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff888017a19210 RCX: 0000000000000000
> > RDX: ffff888021fb1d80 RSI: ffffffff8161f408 RDI: fffff52000737f06
> > RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: 0000000000000005 R09: 0000000000000000
> > R10: 0000000080000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffffffff89f5aba0
> > R13: 00000000000003ff R14: ffff888017a19214 R15: ffff888012705800
> > FS: 0000555555cba300(0000) GS:ffff8880b9b00000(0000)
> > knlGS:0000000000000000
> > CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> > CR2: 0000000020100000 CR3: 000000001bf9e000 CR4: 0000000000350ee0
> > Call Trace:
> > <TASK>
> > __btf_verifier_log+0xbb/0xf0 kernel/bpf/btf.c:1375
> > __btf_verifier_log_type+0x451/0x8f0 kernel/bpf/btf.c:1413
> > btf_func_proto_check_meta+0x117/0x160 kernel/bpf/btf.c:3905
> > btf_check_meta kernel/bpf/btf.c:4588 [inline]
> > btf_check_all_metas+0x3c1/0xa70 kernel/bpf/btf.c:4612
> > btf_parse_type_sec kernel/bpf/btf.c:4748 [inline]
>
> Benjamin, this seems to be coming from BTF loading. Could this be caused
> by some of your recent activity with things like:
>
> commit f9b348185f4d684cc19e6bd9b87904823d5aa5ed
> Author: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue Sep 6 17:13:01 2022 +0200
>
> bpf/btf: bump BTF_KFUNC_SET_MAX_CNT
>
> ?
I doubt this commit is the culprit for 2 reasons:
- BTF_KFUNC_SET_MAX_CNT just sets the size of an internal memory chunk
where we store kfunc definitions. I don't really see how this could be
linked to a verifier log being full
- this commit has been applied on Sep 7, and the first crash in the
dashboard was from Sep 5. So unless the dates are wrong, I don't think
this commit creates the crash.
Unfortunately, I am really new into the bpf/btf world, and I have no
ideas on what could be the cause of that crash. We probably need a
bisect, but I'll be out next week at plumbers, so can't really work on
that now.
Yeah, good point. I've run the repro. I think the issue is that
syzkaller is able to pass btf with a super long random name which
then hits BPF_VERIFIER_TMP_LOG_SIZE while printing the verifier
log line. Seems like a non-issue to me, but maybe we need to
add some extra validation..
Sorry for tagging you here, you were that last to touch that
kernel/bpf/btf.c so were an obvious target :-) But it seems like
it's just a coincidence, the issue still happens on 5.19.
Cheers,
Benjamin
>
> I haven't looked too deep, maybe you can give it a shot? There is
> reproducer; should be relatively easy to verify. Thx.
>
>
> > btf_parse kernel/bpf/btf.c:5031 [inline]
> > btf_new_fd+0x939/0x1e70 kernel/bpf/btf.c:6710
> > bpf_btf_load kernel/bpf/syscall.c:4314 [inline]
> > __sys_bpf+0x13bd/0x6130 kernel/bpf/syscall.c:4998
> > __do_sys_bpf kernel/bpf/syscall.c:5057 [inline]
> > __se_sys_bpf kernel/bpf/syscall.c:5055 [inline]
> > __x64_sys_bpf+0x75/0xb0 kernel/bpf/syscall.c:5055
> > do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline]
> > do_syscall_64+0x35/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80
> > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
> > RIP: 0033:0x7fb092221c29
> > Code: 28 c3 e8 2a 14 00 00 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 48 89 f8 48
89
> > f7 48 89 d6 48 89 ca 4d 89 c2 4d 89 c8 4c 8b 4c 24 08 0f 05 <48> 3d
01 f0
> > ff ff 73 01 c3 48 c7 c1 c0 ff ff ff f7 d8 64 89 01 48
> > RSP: 002b:00007fff5b0a6878 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000141
> > RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 00007fb092221c29
> > RDX: 0000000000000020 RSI: 0000000020000240 RDI: 0000000000000012
> > RBP: 00007fb0921e5dd0 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000
> > R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 00007fb0921e5e60
> > R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 0000000000000000
> > </TASK>
>
>
> > ---
> > This report is generated by a bot. It may contain errors.
> > See https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ for more information about syzbot.
> > syzbot engineers can be reached at syzkaller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
>
> > syzbot will keep track of this issue. See:
> > https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ#status for how to communicate with syzbot.
> > syzbot can test patches for this issue, for details see:
> > https://goo.gl/tpsmEJ#testing-patches
>
