On Feb 8, 2016, at 7:45 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> While trying UBSAN on arm64, I hit a couple of splats at boot in the
> ext4 mballoc code [1] (duplicated below), on v4.5-rc3. In both cases a
> dynamically-computed shift amount underflows before it is applied,
> leading to a too-large shift in one case and a negative shift in the
> other.
>
> The code in question seems largely unchanged since 2008 judging by git
> blame, and I didn't spot any relevant changes in linux-next today
> (next-20160208), so I assume I'm the first to report this.
Are you running with an uncommon configuration (e.g. 64KB PAGE_SIZE or
blocksize > 8192)? That might trigger problems in this code.
Cheers, Andreas
> I've had a quick look at figuring out what's happening below, but I'm
> not familiar with the code and I'm not sure what the intended results
> are. Any help would be appreciated.
>
> The first splat looks like:
>
> [ 3.804750] ================================================================================
> [ 3.813176] UBSAN: Undefined behaviour in fs/ext4/mballoc.c:2612:15
> [ 3.819431] shift exponent 4294967295 is too large for 32-bit type 'int'
> [ 3.826121] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.5.0-rc2+ #48
> [ 3.832463] Hardware name: AMD Overdrive/Supercharger/Default string, BIOS ROD0085E 11/23/2015
> [ 3.841060] Call trace:
> [ 3.843499] [<ffffffc00008d7b8>] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x298
> [ 3.848887] [<ffffffc00008da64>] show_stack+0x14/0x20
> [ 3.853929] [<ffffffc00056e0f0>] dump_stack+0xe0/0x178
> [ 3.859056] [<ffffffc0005b734c>] ubsan_epilogue+0x14/0x50
> [ 3.864444] [<ffffffc0005b7748>] __ubsan_handle_shift_out_of_bounds+0xe0/0x138
> [ 3.871655] [<ffffffc0003e1734>] ext4_mb_init+0x84c/0x920
> [ 3.877043] [<ffffffc0003ba294>] ext4_fill_super+0x2eac/0x4958
> [ 3.882866] [<ffffffc0002c1008>] mount_bdev+0x180/0x1e8
> [ 3.888079] [<ffffffc0003adf8c>] ext4_mount+0x14/0x20
> [ 3.893118] [<ffffffc0002c23f4>] mount_fs+0x44/0x1c8
> [ 3.898073] [<ffffffc0002ed9c0>] vfs_kern_mount+0x50/0x1a8
> [ 3.903547] [<ffffffc0002f3d90>] do_mount+0x240/0x1478
> [ 3.908673] [<ffffffc0002f54d0>] SyS_mount+0x90/0xf8
> [ 3.913627] [<ffffffc000eb2750>] mount_block_root+0x22c/0x3c4
> [ 3.919361] [<ffffffc000eb2a08>] mount_root+0x120/0x138
> [ 3.924574] [<ffffffc000eb2b5c>] prepare_namespace+0x13c/0x184
> [ 3.930396] [<ffffffc000eb21bc>] kernel_init_freeable+0x390/0x3b4
> [ 3.936479] [<ffffffc000bb4a78>] kernel_init+0x10/0xe0
> [ 3.941606] [<ffffffc000086cd0>] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x40
> [ 3.946905] ================================================================================
>
> Which corresponds to the following loop:
>
> 2606 i = 1;
> 2607 offset = 0;
> 2608 max = sb->s_blocksize << 2;
> 2609 do {
> 2610 sbi->s_mb_offsets[i] = offset;
> 2611 sbi->s_mb_maxs[i] = max;
> 2612 offset += 1 << (sb->s_blocksize_bits - i);
> 2613 max = max >> 1;
> 2614 i++;
> 2615 } while (i <= sb->s_blocksize_bits + 1);
>
> The loop condition permits an iteration where i == sb->s_blocksize_bits + 1, as
> sb->s_blocksize_bits is an unsigned char and i is an unsigned, the result is an
> unsigned underflow value (4294967295). This leads us to try to left shift 1 by
> an insanely large value.
>
> The second splat looks like:
>
> [ 5.566166] ================================================================================
> [ 5.574596] UBSAN: Undefined behaviour in fs/ext4/mballoc.c:1274:11
> [ 5.580851] shift exponent -1 is negative
> [ 5.584851] CPU: 4 PID: 1028 Comm: mount Not tainted 4.5.0-rc2+ #48
> [ 5.591105] Hardware name: AMD Overdrive/Supercharger/Default string, BIOS ROD0085E 11/23/2015
> [ 5.599702] Call trace:
> [ 5.602142] [<ffffffc00008d7b8>] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x298
> [ 5.607530] [<ffffffc00008da64>] show_stack+0x14/0x20
> [ 5.612572] [<ffffffc00056e0f0>] dump_stack+0xe0/0x178
> [ 5.617700] [<ffffffc0005b734c>] ubsan_epilogue+0x14/0x50
> [ 5.623088] [<ffffffc0005b7748>] __ubsan_handle_shift_out_of_bounds+0xe0/0x138
> [ 5.630300] [<ffffffc0003d2a04>] mb_find_order_for_block+0x154/0x1b0
> [ 5.636641] [<ffffffc0003d2b2c>] mb_find_extent+0xcc/0x548
> [ 5.642116] [<ffffffc0003de6a8>] ext4_mb_complex_scan_group+0xe8/0x4e8
> [ 5.648632] [<ffffffc0003ded7c>] ext4_mb_regular_allocator+0x2d4/0x648
> [ 5.655148] [<ffffffc0003e2b4c>] ext4_mb_new_blocks+0x344/0x7e0
> [ 5.661056] [<ffffffc0003cbf54>] ext4_ext_map_blocks+0x684/0xf68
> [ 5.667052] [<ffffffc000393664>] ext4_map_blocks+0x12c/0x500
> [ 5.672699] [<ffffffc000398df4>] ext4_writepages+0x47c/0xe38
> [ 5.678348] [<ffffffc00020da20>] do_writepages+0x48/0xc8
> [ 5.683649] [<ffffffc0001f9100>] __filemap_fdatawrite_range+0x70/0xe8
> [ 5.690078] [<ffffffc0001f91b0>] filemap_flush+0x18/0x20
> [ 5.695378] [<ffffffc000394b64>] ext4_alloc_da_blocks+0x3c/0x78
> [ 5.701285] [<ffffffc0003ac1c8>] ext4_rename+0x690/0xe38
> [ 5.706585] [<ffffffc0003ac98c>] ext4_rename2+0x1c/0x40
> [ 5.711800] [<ffffffc0002d0510>] vfs_rename+0x2c0/0xa90
> [ 5.717013] [<ffffffc0002d661c>] SyS_renameat2+0x464/0x5c0
> [ 5.722486] [<ffffffc0002d6788>] SyS_renameat+0x10/0x18
> [ 5.727700] [<ffffffc000086d30>] el0_svc_naked+0x24/0x28
> [ 5.732998] ================================================================================
>
> Which corresponds to:
>
> 1259 static int mb_find_order_for_block(struct ext4_buddy *e4b, int block)
> 1260 {
> 1261 int order = 1;
> 1262 void *bb;
> 1263
> 1264 BUG_ON(e4b->bd_bitmap == e4b->bd_buddy);
> 1265 BUG_ON(block >= (1 << (e4b->bd_blkbits + 3)));
> 1266
> 1267 bb = e4b->bd_buddy;
> 1268 while (order <= e4b->bd_blkbits + 1) {
> 1269 block = block >> 1;
> 1270 if (!mb_test_bit(block, bb)) {
> 1271 /* this block is part of buddy of order 'order' */
> 1272 return order;
> 1273 }
> 1274 bb += 1 << (e4b->bd_blkbits - order);
> 1275 order++;
> 1276 }
> 1277 return 0;
> 1278 }
>
> We allow an iteration when order == e4b->bd_blkbits + 1 and so we calculate a
> shift amount of -1.
>
> Any idea of what should be done in these cases?
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
>
> [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2016-February/405825.html
Cheers, Andreas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
