On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 11:30 PM Aleksa Sarai <cyphar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000000
Would you mind building with debug info, and then running the oops through
scripts/decode_stacktrace.sh
which makes those addresses much more legible.
> #PF: supervisor instruction fetch in kernel mode
> #PF: error_code(0x0010) - not-present page
Somebody jumped through a NULL pointer.
> RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff906d0cc3bb40 RCX: 0000000000000abc
> RDX: 0000000000000089 RSI: ffff906d74623cc0 RDI: ffff906d74475df0
> RBP: ffff906d74475df0 R08: ffffd70b7fb24c20 R09: ffff906d066a5000
> R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 8080807fffffffff R12: ffff906d74623cc0
> R13: 0000000000000089 R14: ffffb70b82963dc0 R15: 0000000000000080
> FS: 00007fbc2a8f0540(0000) GS:ffff906dcf500000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> CR2: ffffffffffffffd6 CR3: 00000003c68f8001 CR4: 00000000003606e0
> Call Trace:
> __lookup_slow+0x94/0x160
And "__lookup_slow()" has two indirect calls (they aren't obvious with
retpoline, but look for something like
call __x86_indirect_thunk_rax
which is the modern sad way of doing "call *%rax"). One is for
revalidatinging an old dentry, but the one I _suspect_ you trigger is
this one:
old = inode->i_op->lookup(inode, dentry, flags);
but I thought we only could get here if we know it's a directory.
How did we miss the "d_can_lookup()", which is what should check that
yes, we can call that ->lookup() routine.
This is why I have that suspicion that it's somehow that O_PATH fd
opened in another process without O_PATH causes confusion...
So what I think has happened is that because of the O_PATH thing,
we've ended up with an inode that has never been truly opened (because
O_PATH skips that part), but then with the /proc/<pid>/fd/xyz open, we
now have a file descriptor that _looks_ like it is valid, and we're
treating that inode as if it can be used.
But I'm handwaving.
Linus
