Hello, Recently we noticed the attached PoC cause a GPF with the following stacktrace in linux-4.14.y and linux-4.19.y. BUG: KASAN: null-ptr-deref in get_page+0xf/0x65 Read of size 8 at addr 0000000000000008 by task poc2/3395 CPU: 0 PID: 3395 Comm: poc2 Not tainted 4.19.214-00936-g38ec06730e44 #59 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.14.0-0-g155821a1990b-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014 Call Trace: dump_stack+0xe7/0x131 kasan_report+0x22a/0x272 get_page+0xf/0x65 submit_page_section+0xf4/0x202 do_blockdev_direct_IO+0xb90/0xfb9 ? dio_set_defer_completion+0x57/0x57 ? lock_is_held_type+0x78/0x86 ? jbd2_journal_stop+0x6fa/0x742 ? ext4_get_block_trans+0x188/0x188 ? lock_downgrade+0x29a/0x29a ? __blockdev_direct_IO+0x52/0x93 ? do_journal_get_write_access+0x7b/0x7b ext4_direct_IO+0x4eb/0x7ad ? ext4_get_block_trans+0x188/0x188 generic_file_direct_write+0x132/0x1d8 __generic_file_write_iter+0xa6/0x1c0 ? generic_write_checks+0x173/0x19d ext4_file_write_iter+0x450/0x549 ? ext4_unwritten_wait+0x153/0x153 ? iter_file_splice_write+0x11a/0x4d7 ? lock_acquire+0x1a7/0x1e7 ? iter_file_splice_write+0x11a/0x4d7 ? lock_acquire+0x1b7/0x1e7 ? match_held_lock+0x2e/0x102 ? __lock_is_held+0x2a/0x87 do_iter_readv_writev+0x145/0x1b1 ? file_start_write.isra.0+0x34/0x34 ? avc_policy_seqno+0x1d/0x25 ? selinux_file_permission+0xce/0x115 do_iter_write+0xa6/0xe6 iter_file_splice_write+0x337/0x4d7 ? __do_compat_sys_vmsplice+0x16c/0x16c ? match_held_lock+0x2e/0x102 ? lock_is_held_type+0x78/0x86 __do_sys_splice+0x6cc/0x8f6 ? ipipe_prep.part.0+0x99/0x99 ? mark_held_locks+0x2d/0x84 ? do_syscall_64+0x14/0x90 do_syscall_64+0x74/0x90 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe RIP: 0033:0x43f579 Applying the following patch on linux-4.14.y/linux-4.19.y stops the crash from occurring on either of these kernels. 3d75ca0adef4 ("block: introduce multi-page bvec helpers") Tracking the control flow with and without 3d75ca0adef4; there seems to be a callpath as follows: do_blockdev_direct_IO => do_direct_IO => dio_get_page => dio_refill_pages => iov_iter_get_pages iov_iter_get_pages() returns 0x8000(without the patch) vs 0x1000(with the patch). This seems to be the first point at which control flow diverges between the two from do_blockdev_direct_IO() onward. Is 3d75ca0adef4 the correct fix, or would it be masking a different underlying problem? PoC causing crash below: // general protection fault in __blockdev_direct_IO // https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=d98d666ccfa0e74f2e459083956394fee8a985df // status:open // autogenerated by syzkaller (https://github.com/google/syzkaller) #define _GNU_SOURCE #include <dirent.h> #include <endian.h> #include <errno.h> #include <fcntl.h> #include <signal.h> #include <stdarg.h> #include <stdbool.h> #include <stdint.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <string.h> #include <sys/prctl.h> #include <sys/stat.h> #include <sys/syscall.h> #include <sys/types.h> #include <sys/wait.h> #include <time.h> #include <unistd.h> void execute_one(void) { int pipefd[2]; int sockfd; int fd; syscall(__NR_creat, "./bus", 0); if (creat("./bus", 0) == -1) { fprintf(stderr, "creat failed\n"); exit(1); } if (pipe(pipefd) == -1) { fprintf(stderr, "pipe failed\n"); exit(1); } if ((sockfd = syscall(__NR_socket, 2, 1, 0)) == -1) { fprintf(stderr, "socket failed\n"); exit(1); } *(uint32_t*)0x20000080 = 1; syscall(__NR_setsockopt, sockfd, 6, 0x10000000013, 0x20000080, 4); *(uint32_t*)0x20788ffc = 1; syscall(__NR_setsockopt, sockfd, 6, 0x14, 0x20788ffc, 0xfdf6); *(uint16_t*)0x20000000 = 2; *(uint16_t*)0x20000002 = htobe16(0); syscall(__NR_connect, sockfd, 0x20000000, 0x10); memcpy((void*)0x20000100, "\xcc", 1); syscall(__NR_sendto, sockfd, 0x20000100, 0xffffffffffffff3d, 0, 0, 0); syscall(__NR_splice, sockfd, 0, pipefd[1], 0, 0x11001, 0); memcpy((void*)0x20000040, "./bus\000", 6); if ((fd = syscall(__NR_open, 0x20000040, 0x4082, 0)) == -1) { fprintf(stderr, "open failed\n"); exit(1); } syscall(__NR_splice, pipefd[0], 0, fd, 0, 0xffffffff, 0); } int main(void) { syscall(__NR_mmap, 0x20000000, 0x1000000, 3, 0x32, -1, 0); execute_one(); return 0; } Thanks, - Zubin