On 23/10/2020 07.02, Sean Christopherson wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 08:05:05PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 6:36 PM Daniel Díaz <daniel.diaz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The kernel Naresh originally referred to is here:
https://builds.tuxbuild.com/SCI7Xyjb7V2NbfQ2lbKBZw/
Thanks.
And when I started looking at it, I realized that my original idea
("just look for __put_user_nocheck_X calls, there aren't so many of
those") was garbage, and that I was just being stupid.
Yes, the commit that broke was about __put_user(), but in order to not
duplicate all the code, it re-used the regular put_user()
infrastructure, and so all the normal put_user() calls are potential
problem spots too if this is about the compiler interaction with KASAN
and the asm changes.
So it's not just a couple of special cases to look at, it's all the
normal cases too.
Ok, back to the drawing board, but I think reverting it is probably
the right thing to do if I can't think of something smart.
That said, since you see this on x86-64, where the whole ugly trick with that
register asm("%"_ASM_AX)
is unnecessary (because the 8-byte case is still just a single
register, no %eax:%edx games needed), it would be interesting to hear
if the attached patch fixes it. That would confirm that the problem
really is due to some register allocation issue interaction (or,
alternatively, it would tell me that there's something else going on).
I haven't reproduced the crash, but I did find a smoking gun that confirms the
"register shenanigans are evil shenanigans" theory. I ran into a similar thing
recently where a seemingly innocuous line of code after loading a value into a
register variable wreaked havoc because it clobbered the input register.
This put_user() in schedule_tail():
if (current->set_child_tid)
put_user(task_pid_vnr(current), current->set_child_tid);
generates the following assembly with KASAN out-of-line:
0xffffffff810dccc9 <+73>: xor %edx,%edx
0xffffffff810dcccb <+75>: xor %esi,%esi
0xffffffff810dcccd <+77>: mov %rbp,%rdi
0xffffffff810dccd0 <+80>: callq 0xffffffff810bf5e0 <__task_pid_nr_ns>
0xffffffff810dccd5 <+85>: mov %r12,%rdi
0xffffffff810dccd8 <+88>: callq 0xffffffff81388c60 <__asan_load8>
0xffffffff810dccdd <+93>: mov 0x590(%rbp),%rcx
0xffffffff810dcce4 <+100>: callq 0xffffffff817708a0 <__put_user_4>
0xffffffff810dcce9 <+105>: pop %rbx
0xffffffff810dccea <+106>: pop %rbp
0xffffffff810dcceb <+107>: pop %r12
__task_pid_nr_ns() returns the pid in %rax, which gets clobbered by
__asan_load8()'s check on current for the current->set_child_tid dereference.
Yup, and you don't need KASAN to implicitly generate function calls for
you. With x86_64 defconfig, I get
extern u64 __user *get_destination(int x, int y);
void pu_test(void)
{
u64 big = 0x1234abcd5678;
if (put_user(big, get_destination(4, 5)))
pr_warn("uh");
}
to generate
0000000000004d60 <pu_test>:
4d60: 53 push %rbx
4d61: be 05 00 00 00 mov $0x5,%esi
4d66: bf 04 00 00 00 mov $0x4,%edi
4d6b: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 4d70 <pu_test+0x10>
4d6c: R_X86_64_PC32 get_destination-0x4
4d70: 48 89 c1 mov %rax,%rcx
4d73: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 4d78 <pu_test+0x18>
4d74: R_X86_64_PC32 __put_user_8-0x4
4d78: 85 c9 test %ecx,%ecx
4d7a: 75 02 jne 4d7e <pu_test+0x1e>
4d7c: 5b pop %rbx
4d7d: c3 retq
4d7e: 5b pop %rbx
4d7f: 48 c7 c7 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%rdi
4d82: R_X86_64_32S .rodata.str1.1+0xfa
4d86: e9 00 00 00 00 jmpq 4d8b <pu_test+0x2b>
4d87: R_X86_64_PC32 printk-0x4
That's certainly garbage. Now, I don't know if it's a sufficient fix (or
could break something else), but the obvious first step of rearranging
so that the ptr argument is evaluated before the assignment to __val_pu
diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
index 477c503f2753..b5d3290fcd09 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/uaccess.h
@@ -235,13 +235,13 @@ extern void __put_user_nocheck_8(void);
#define do_put_user_call(fn,x,ptr) \
({ \
int __ret_pu; \
- register __typeof__(*(ptr)) __val_pu asm("%"_ASM_AX); \
+ __typeof__(ptr) __ptr = (ptr); \
+ register __typeof__(*(ptr)) __val_pu asm("%"_ASM_AX) = (x); \
__chk_user_ptr(ptr); \
- __val_pu = (x); \
asm volatile("call __" #fn "_%P[size]" \
: "=c" (__ret_pu), \
ASM_CALL_CONSTRAINT \
- : "0" (ptr), \
+ : "0" (__ptr), \
"r" (__val_pu), \
[size] "i" (sizeof(*(ptr))) \
:"ebx"); \
at least gets us
0000000000004d60 <pu_test>:
4d60: 53 push %rbx
4d61: be 05 00 00 00 mov $0x5,%esi
4d66: bf 04 00 00 00 mov $0x4,%edi
4d6b: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 4d70 <pu_test+0x10>
4d6c: R_X86_64_PC32 get_destination-0x4
4d70: 48 89 c1 mov %rax,%rcx
4d73: 48 b8 78 56 cd ab 34 movabs $0x1234abcd5678,%rax
4d7a: 12 00 00
4d7d: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 4d82 <pu_test+0x22>
4d7e: R_X86_64_PC32 __put_user_8-0x4
FWIW, https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Local-Register-Variables.html
does warn about function calls and other things that might clobber the
register variables between the assignment and the use as an input
(though the case of evaluating other input operands is not explicitly
mentioned).
Rasmus
