On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Andrey Ryabinin
<aryabinin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 03/14/2017 08:15 PM, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 03/06/2017 08:16 PM, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What about
>>>>>
>>>>> Object at ffff880068388540 belongs to cache kmalloc-128 of size 128
>>>>> Accessed address is 123 bytes inside of [ffff880068388540, ffff8800683885c0)
>>>>>
>>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>> Another alternative:
>>>>
>>>> Accessed address is 123 bytes inside of [ffff880068388540, ffff8800683885c0)
>>>> Object belongs to cache kmalloc-128 of size 128
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is it something wrong with just printing offset at the end as I suggested earlier?
>>> It's more compact and also more clear IMO.
>>
>> This is what you suggested:
>>
>> Object at ffff880068388540, in cache kmalloc-128 size: 128 accessed at
>> offset 123
>>
>> After minor reworking of punctuation, etc, we get:
>>
>> Object at ffff880068388540, in cache kmalloc-128 of size 128, accessed
>> at offset 123
>>
>> It's good, but I still don't like two things:
>>
>> 1. The line is quite long. Over 84 characters in this example, but
>> might be longer for different cache names. The solution would be to
>> split it into two lines.
>
> One line slightly larger than 80 chars is easier to read than
> two IMO.
>
>>
>> 2. The access might be within the object (for example use-after-free),
>> or outside the object (slab-out-of-bounds). In this case just saying
>> "accessed at offset X" might be confusing, since the offset might be
>> from the start of the object, or might be from the end. The solution
>> would be to specifically describe this.
>>
>
> It's not confusing IMO.
> It's pretty obvious that offset in the message "Object at <addr> ... accessed at offset <x>"
> specifies the offset from the start of the object.
>
>
>> Out of all options above this one I like the most:
>>
>>>> Accessed address is 123 bytes inside of [ffff880068388540, ffff8800683885c0)
>>>> Object belongs to cache kmalloc-128 of size 128
>>
>> as:
>>
>> 1. It specifies whether the offset is inside or outside the object.
>
> It doesn't really matter much whether is offset inside or outside.
> Offset is only useful to identify what exactly struct/field accessed in situation like this:
> x = a->b->c->d;
> In other cases it usually just useless.
>
> Also, note that you comparing access_addr against cache->object_size (which may be not equal to
> the size requested by kmalloc)
>
> + if (access_addr < object_addr) {
> + rel_type = "to the left";
> + rel_bytes = object_addr - access_addr;
> + } else if (access_addr >= object_addr + cache->object_size) {
> + rel_type = "to the right";
> + rel_bytes = access_addr - (object_addr + cache->object_size);
> + } else {
> + rel_type = "inside";
> + rel_bytes = access_addr - object_addr;
> + }
> +
>
> So let's say we did kmalloc(100, GFP_KERNEL); This would mean that allocation
> was from kmalloc-128 cache.
>
> a) If we have off-by-one OOB access, we would see:
> Accessed address is 100 bytes inside of [<start>, <start> + 128)
> belongs to cache kmalloc-128 of size 128
>
> b) And for the off-by-28 OOB, we would see:
> Accessed address is 0 bytes to the right [<start>, <start> + 128)
> belongs to cache kmalloc-128 of size 128
>
> But I don't really see why we supposed to have different message for case a) b).
>
> Comparing against requested size is possible only by looking into shadow. However that would
> be complicated and also racy which means that you occasionally end up with some random numbers.
OK, makes sense.
I hope you don't mind if I put the offset at the next line.
>
> Also, I couldn't imagine why would anyone need to know the offset from the end of the object.
>
>> 2. The lines are not too long (the first one is 76 chars).
>> 3. Accounts for larger cache names (the second line has some spare space).
>> 4. Shows exact addresses of start and end of the object (it's possible
>> to calculate the end address using the start and the size, but it's
>> nicer to have it already calculated and shown).
>
> Come on we can do the simple math if needed.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
