On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:54:03PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 05:34:15PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:20:16PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:07:35PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 04:44:31PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 02:35:34PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 03:20:00AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> > > > > > > I debugged preadv02 and pwritev02 failures and found very weird bug.
> > > > > > > Test passes {iovec_base = 0xffffffff, iovec_len = 64} as one element
> > > > > > > of vector, and kernel reports successful read/write.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are 2 problems:
> > > > > > > 1. How kernel allows such address to be passed to fs subsystem;
> > > > > > > 2. How fs successes to read/write at non-mapped, and in fact non-user
> > > > > > > address.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't know the answer on 2'nd question, and it might be something
> > > > > > > generic. But I investigated first problem.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The problem is that compat_rw_copy_check_uvector() uses access_ok() to
> > > > > > > validate user address, and on arm64 it ends up with checking buffer
> > > > > > > end against current_thread_info()->addr_limit.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > current_thread_info()->addr_limit for ilp32, and most probably for
> > > > > > > aarch32 is equal to aarch64 one, and so adress_ok() doesn't fail.
> > > > > > > It happens because on thread creation we call flush_old_exec() to set
> > > > > > > addr_limit, and completely ignore compat mode there.
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/binfmt_elf32.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/binfmt_elf32.c
> > > > > > > @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
> > > > > > > do { \
> > > > > > > clear_thread_flag(TIF_32BIT_AARCH64); \
> > > > > > > set_thread_flag(TIF_32BIT); \
> > > > > > > + set_fs(TASK_SIZE_32); \
> > > > > > > } while (0)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > #define COMPAT_ARCH_DLINFO
> > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/binfmt_ilp32.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/binfmt_ilp32.c
> > > > > > > index a934fd4..a8599c6 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/binfmt_ilp32.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/binfmt_ilp32.c
> > > > > > > @@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ static void cputime_to_compat_timeval(const cputime_t cputime,
> > > > > > > do { \
> > > > > > > set_thread_flag(TIF_32BIT_AARCH64); \
> > > > > > > clear_thread_flag(TIF_32BIT); \
> > > > > > > + set_fs(TASK_SIZE_32); \
> > > > > > > } while (0)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think we need these two. AFAICT, flush_old_exec() takes care of
> > > > > > setting the USER_DS for the new thread.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's true, but USER_DS depends on personality which is not set yet
> > > > > for new thread, as I wrote above. In fact, I tried correct USER_DS
> > > > > only, and it doesn't work
> > > >
> > > > Ah, it looks like load_elf_binary() sets the personality after
> > > > flush_old_exec(). Looking at powerpc and x86, they set USER_DS to the
> > > > maximum 64-bit task value, so they should have a similar issue with
> > > > native 32-bit vs compat behaviour.
> > >
> > > I think we have another problem. flush_old_exec() calls the arm64
> > > flush_thread() where tls_thread_flush() checks for is_compat_task(). So
> > > starting a 32-bit application from a 64-bit one not go on the correct
> > > path.
> >
> > As per now, all native, aarch32 and ilp32 tasks can exec() any
> > binaries they need.
>
> And that's correct.
>
> > Are you think it's wrong? If so, how we coild run
> > first compat application (maybe shell), it there are only lp64 tasks
> > on the system?
>
> What I meant is that we rely on flush_old_exec() to initialise the TLS
> register for the compat task but it currently depends on what the parent
> is. I think tls_thread_flush() should actually drop the is_compat_task()
> thread and always initialise all the TLS registers.
>
OK. I'll do it in v2.
> --
> Catalin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
