* Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx> [220611 17:50]: > On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 2:11 PM Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 10:40 AM Qian Cai <quic_qiancai@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 04:19:52PM +0000, Liam Howlett wrote: > > > > Does your syscall fuzzer create a reproducer? This looks like arm64 > > > > and says 5.18.0-next-20220603 again. Was this bisected to the patch > > > > above? > > > > > > This was triggered by running the fuzzer over the weekend. > > > > > > $ trinity -C 160 > > > > > > No bisection was done. It was only brought up here because the trace > > > pointed to do_mas_munmap() which was introduced here. > > > > Liam, > > > > I'm getting a similar crash on arm64 -- the allocator is madvise(), > > not mprotect(). Please take a look. > > Another crash on x86_64, which seems different: Thanks, yes. This one may be different. The others are the same source and I'm working on that. > > ================================================================== > BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in mab_mas_cp+0x2d9/0x6c0 > Write of size 136 at addr ffff88c5a2319c80 by task stress-ng/18461 > > CPU: 66 PID: 18461 Comm: stress-ng Tainted: G S I 5.19.0-smp-DEV #1 > Call Trace: > <TASK> > dump_stack_lvl+0xc5/0xf4 > print_address_description+0x7f/0x460 > print_report+0x10b/0x240 > ? mab_mas_cp+0x2d9/0x6c0 > kasan_report+0xe6/0x110 > ? mab_mas_cp+0x2d9/0x6c0 > kasan_check_range+0x2ef/0x310 > ? mab_mas_cp+0x2d9/0x6c0 > memcpy+0x44/0x70 > mab_mas_cp+0x2d9/0x6c0 > mas_spanning_rebalance+0x1a45/0x4d70 > ? stack_trace_save+0xca/0x160 > ? stack_trace_save+0xca/0x160 > mas_wr_spanning_store+0x16a4/0x1ad0 > mas_wr_spanning_store+0x16a4/0x1ad0 > mas_wr_store_entry+0xbf9/0x12e0 > mas_store_prealloc+0x205/0x3c0 > do_mas_align_munmap+0x6cf/0xd10 > do_mas_munmap+0x1bb/0x210 > ? down_write_killable+0xa6/0x110 > __vm_munmap+0x1c4/0x270 > __x64_sys_munmap+0x60/0x70 > do_syscall_64+0x44/0xa0 > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x46/0xb0 > RIP: 0033:0x589827 > Code: 00 00 00 48 c7 c2 98 ff ff ff f7 d8 64 89 02 48 c7 c0 ff ff ff > ff eb 85 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 90 b8 0b 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d > 01 f0 ff ff 73 01 c3 48 c7 c1 98 ff ff ff f7 d8 64 89 01 48 > RSP: 002b:00007fff9276c518 EFLAGS: 00000206 ORIG_RAX: 000000000000000b > RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000400000000000 RCX: 0000000000589827 > RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 00007ffffffff000 RDI: 0000000000000000 > RBP: 00000000004cf000 R08: 00007fff9276c550 R09: 0000000000923bf0 > R10: 0000000000000008 R11: 0000000000000206 R12: 0000000000001000 > R13: 00000000004cf040 R14: 0000000000000004 R15: 00007fff9276c668 > </TASK> > > Allocated by task 18461: > __kasan_slab_alloc+0xaf/0xe0 > kmem_cache_alloc_bulk+0x261/0x360 > mas_alloc_nodes+0x2d7/0x4d0 > mas_preallocate+0xe0/0x220 > do_mas_align_munmap+0x1ce/0xd10 > do_mas_munmap+0x1bb/0x210 > __vm_munmap+0x1c4/0x270 > __x64_sys_munmap+0x60/0x70 > do_syscall_64+0x44/0xa0 > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x46/0xb0 > > The buggy address belongs to the object at ffff88c5a2319c00 > which belongs to the cache maple_node of size 256 > The buggy address is located 128 bytes inside of > 256-byte region [ffff88c5a2319c00, ffff88c5a2319d00) > > The buggy address belongs to the physical page: > page:000000000a5cfe8b refcount:1 mapcount:0 mapping:0000000000000000 > index:0x0 pfn:0x45a2319 > flags: 0x1400000000000200(slab|node=1|zone=1) > raw: 1400000000000200 ffffea01168dea88 ffffea0116951f48 ffff88810004ff00 > raw: 0000000000000000 ffff88c5a2319000 0000000100000008 0000000000000000 > page dumped because: kasan: bad access detected > > Memory state around the buggy address: > ffff88c5a2319c00: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 > ffff88c5a2319c80: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 > >ffff88c5a2319d00: fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc > ^ > ffff88c5a2319d80: fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc fc > ffff88c5a2319e00: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 > ==================================================================
