On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 07:11:12PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> > I _think_ I see what the issue is. It seems that an assumption made in
> > this commit might be wrong and we're missing a mnt_add_count() bump that
> > we would otherwise have gotten if we've moved the failure handling into
> > the unlazy helpers themselves.
> >
> > Al, does that sound plausible?
>
> mnt_add_count() on _what_? Failure in legitimize_links() ends up with
> nd->path.mnt zeroed, in both callers. So which vfsmount would be
> affected?
Could you turn that WARN_ON(count < 0) into
if (WARN_ON(count < 0))
printk(KERN_ERR "id = %d, dev = %s, count = %d\n",
mnt->mnt_id,
mnt->mnt_sb->s_id,
count);
add system("cat /proc/self/mountinfo"); right after sandbox_common()
call and try to reproduce that?
I really wonder what mount is it happening to. BTW, how painful would
it be to teach syzcaller to turn those cascades of
NONFAILING(*(uint8_t*)0x20000080 = 0x12);
NONFAILING(*(uint8_t*)0x20000081 = 0);
NONFAILING(*(uint16_t*)0x20000082 = 0);
NONFAILING(*(uint32_t*)0x20000084 = 0xffffff9c);
NONFAILING(*(uint64_t*)0x20000088 = 0);
NONFAILING(*(uint64_t*)0x20000090 = 0x20000180);
NONFAILING(memcpy((void*)0x20000180, "./file0\000", 8));
NONFAILING(*(uint32_t*)0x20000098 = 0);
NONFAILING(*(uint32_t*)0x2000009c = 0x80);
NONFAILING(*(uint64_t*)0x200000a0 = 0x23456);
....
NONFAILING(syz_io_uring_submit(r[1], r[2], 0x20000080, 0));
into something more readable? Bloody annoyance every time... Sure, I can
manually translate it into
struct io_uring_sqe *sqe = (void *)0x20000080;
char *s = (void *)0x20000180;
memset(sqe, '\0', sizeof(*sqe));
sqe->opcode = 0x12; // IORING_OP_OPENAT?
sqe->fd = -100; // AT_FDCWD?
sqe->addr = s;
strcpy(s, "./file0");
sqe->open_flags = 0x80; // O_EXCL???
sqe->user_data = 0x23456; // random tag?
syz_io_uring_submit(r[1], r[2], (unsigned long)p, 0);
but it's really annoying as hell, especially since syz_io_uring_submit()
comes from syzcaller and the damn thing _knows_ that the third argument
is sodding io_uring_sqe, and never passed to anything other than
memcpy() in there, at that, so the exact address can't matter.
Incidentally, solitary O_EXCL (without O_CREAT) is... curious. Does that
sucker still trigger without it? I.e. with store to 0x2000009c replaced
with storing 0?
