On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 12:53 AM Leizhen (ThunderTown)
<thunder.leizhen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2021/12/15 13:29, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 11:58:03AM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2021/12/15 10:13, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> >>> On arm64, during kdump kernel saves vmcore, it runs into the following bug:
> >>> ...
> >>> [ 15.148919] usercopy: Kernel memory exposure attempt detected from SLUB object 'kmem_cache_node' (offset 0, size 4096)!
> >>> [ 15.159707] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> >>> [ 15.164311] kernel BUG at mm/usercopy.c:99!
> >>> [ 15.168482] Internal error: Oops - BUG: 0 [#1] SMP
> >>> [ 15.173261] Modules linked in: xfs libcrc32c crct10dif_ce ghash_ce sha2_ce sha256_arm64 sha1_ce sbsa_gwdt ast i2c_algo_bit drm_vram_helper drm_kms_helper syscopyarea sysfillrect sysimgblt fb_sys_fops cec drm_ttm_helper ttm drm nvme nvme_core xgene_hwmon i2c_designware_platform i2c_designware_core dm_mirror dm_region_hash dm_log dm_mod overlay squashfs zstd_decompress loop
> >>> [ 15.206186] CPU: 0 PID: 542 Comm: cp Not tainted 5.16.0-rc4 #1
> >>> [ 15.212006] Hardware name: GIGABYTE R272-P30-JG/MP32-AR0-JG, BIOS F12 (SCP: 1.5.20210426) 05/13/2021
> >>> [ 15.221125] pstate: 60400009 (nZCv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
> >>> [ 15.228073] pc : usercopy_abort+0x9c/0xa0
> >>> [ 15.232074] lr : usercopy_abort+0x9c/0xa0
> >>> [ 15.236070] sp : ffff8000121abba0
> >>> [ 15.239371] x29: ffff8000121abbb0 x28: 0000000000003000 x27: 0000000000000000
> >>> [ 15.246494] x26: 0000000080000400 x25: 0000ffff885c7000 x24: 0000000000000000
> >>> [ 15.253617] x23: 000007ff80400000 x22: ffff07ff80401000 x21: 0000000000000001
> >>> [ 15.260739] x20: 0000000000001000 x19: ffff07ff80400000 x18: ffffffffffffffff
> >>> [ 15.267861] x17: 656a626f2042554c x16: 53206d6f72662064 x15: 6574636574656420
> >>> [ 15.274983] x14: 74706d6574746120 x13: 2129363930342065 x12: 7a6973202c302074
> >>> [ 15.282105] x11: ffffc8b041d1b148 x10: 00000000ffff8000 x9 : ffffc8b04012812c
> >>> [ 15.289228] x8 : 00000000ffff7fff x7 : ffffc8b041d1b148 x6 : 0000000000000000
> >>> [ 15.296349] x5 : 0000000000000000 x4 : 0000000000007fff x3 : 0000000000000000
> >>> [ 15.303471] x2 : 0000000000000000 x1 : ffff07ff8c064800 x0 : 000000000000006b
> >>> [ 15.310593] Call trace:
> >>> [ 15.313027] usercopy_abort+0x9c/0xa0
> >>> [ 15.316677] __check_heap_object+0xd4/0xf0
> >>> [ 15.320762] __check_object_size.part.0+0x160/0x1e0
> >>> [ 15.325628] __check_object_size+0x2c/0x40
> >>> [ 15.329711] copy_oldmem_page+0x7c/0x140
> >>> [ 15.333623] read_from_oldmem.part.0+0xfc/0x1c0
> >>> [ 15.338142] __read_vmcore.constprop.0+0x23c/0x350
> >>> [ 15.342920] read_vmcore+0x28/0x34
> >>> [ 15.346309] proc_reg_read+0xb4/0xf0
> >>> [ 15.349871] vfs_read+0xb8/0x1f0
> >>> [ 15.353088] ksys_read+0x74/0x100
> >>> [ 15.356390] __arm64_sys_read+0x28/0x34
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>> This bug introduced by commit b261dba2fdb2 ("arm64: kdump: Remove custom
> >>> linux,usable-memory-range handling"), which moves
> >>> memblock_cap_memory_range() to fdt, but it breaches the rules that
> >>> memblock_cap_memory_range() should come after memblock_add() etc as said
> >>> in commit e888fa7bb882 ("memblock: Check memory add/cap ordering").
> >>
> >> void __init early_init_dt_scan_nodes(void)
> >> {
> >> //(1) -->early_init_dt_check_for_usable_mem_range, fill cap_mem_addr
> >> rc = of_scan_flat_dt(early_init_dt_scan_chosen, boot_command_line);
> >>
> >> //(2) --> early_init_dt_add_memory_arch --> memblock_add()
> >> of_scan_flat_dt(early_init_dt_scan_memory, NULL);
> >>
> >> //(3)
> >> memblock_cap_memory_range(cap_mem_addr, cap_mem_size);
> >> }
> >>
> >> I didn't get it. The above step (1),(2),(3) comply with
> >> commit e888fa7bb882 ("memblock: Check memory add/cap ordering")
> >>
> > Well, at this scope, it does. But from a larger scope, let's say on
> > arm64,
> > setup_arch
> > ...
> > setup_machine_fdt(); //which holds your case
> > ...
> > efi_init(); //which call memblock_add, and breach the ordering.
> >
> >> Did you see the warning?
> >> pr_warn("%s: No memory registered yet\n", __func__);
> >>
> > Yes, I did see this message, which brings me to commit e888fa7bb882
> > ("memblock: Check memory add/cap ordering")
> >
> > I am also curious why this bug does not be discovered. Is CONFIG_EFI
> > on at your case?
>
> Yes, Both X86 and ARM64, CONFIG_EFI=y. I used the defconfig.
Are you booting using EFI though? efi_init() removes all memblocks
that may have been setup from the DT and adds memblocks using the EFI
memory map information.
Rob
