Baoquan He <bhe@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 11/09/22 at 04:59pm, Stephen Brennan wrote:
> ......
>> > @@ -3569,12 +3609,14 @@ long vread(char *buf, char *addr, unsigned long count)
>> > if (!count)
>> > break;
>> >
>> > - if (!va->vm)
>> > + if (!(va->flags & VMAP_RAM) && !va->vm)
>> > continue;
>> >
>> > vm = va->vm;
>> > - vaddr = (char *) vm->addr;
>> > - if (addr >= vaddr + get_vm_area_size(vm))
>> > + vaddr = (char *) va->va_start;
>> > + size = vm ? get_vm_area_size(vm) : va_size(va);
>>
>> Hi Baoquan,
>>
>> Thanks for working on this. I tested your patches out by using drgn to
>> debug /proc/kcore. I have a kernel module[1] to do a vm_map_ram() call
>> and print the virtual address to the kernel log so I can try to read
>> that memory address in drgn. When I did this test, I got a panic on the
>> above line of code.
> ......
>> Since flags is in a union, it shadows "vm" and causes the condition to
>> be true, and then get_vm_area_size() tries to follow the pointer defined
>> by flags. I'm not sure if the fix is to have flags be a separate field
>> inside vmap_area, or to have more careful handling in the vread path.
>
> Sorry, my bad. Thanks for testing this and catching the error, Stephen.
>
> About the fix, both way are fine to me. I made a draft fix based on the
> current patchset. To me, adding flags in a separate field makes code
> easier, but cost extra memory. I will see what other people say about
> this, firstly if the solution is acceptable, then reusing the union
> field or adding anohter flags.
>
> Could you try below code to see if it works?
I tried the patch below and it worked for me: reading from vm_map_ram()
regions in drgn was fine, gave me the correct values, and I also tested
reads which overlapped the beginning and end of the region.
That said (and I don't know the vmalloc code well at all), I wonder
whether you can be confident that the lower 2 bits of the va->vm pointer
are always clear? It looks like it comes from kmalloc, and so it should
be aligned, but can slab red zones mess up that alignment?
I also tested out this patch on top of yours, to be a bit more cautious.
I think we can be confident that the remaining bits are zero when used
as flags, and non-zero when used as a pointer, so you can test them to
avoid any overlap. But it's probably too cautious.
diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
index 78cae59170d8..911974f32b23 100644
--- a/mm/vmalloc.c
+++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
@@ -3613,7 +3613,7 @@ long vread(char *buf, char *addr, unsigned long count)
if (!va->vm)
continue;
- flags = va->flags & VMAP_FLAGS_MASK;
+ flags = (va->flags & ~VMAP_FLAGS_MASK) ? 0 : (va->flags & VMAP_FLAGS_MASK);
vm = va->vm;
vaddr = (char *) va->va_start;
