On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 04:22:39PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 05:50:39PM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >> >> On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > [...] > > Hi Dmitry, > >> >> Thanks for looking into this! >> >> As I noted I don't think this is use-after-free, more likely it is an >> out-of-bounds access against non-slab range. >> >> Report says that we are copying 0x1000 bytes starting at 0xffff880062c6e02a. >> The first bad address is 0xffff880062c6f000, this address was freed >> previously and that's why KASAN reports UAF. > > We're copying 65499 bytes (65535 - sizeof(sg_header)) and we've got 2 order 3 > page allocations to do this. It fails somewhere in there. I have seen fails at > 0x2000, 0xe000 and all (0x1000 aligned) offsets inbetween. > >> But this is already next page, and KASAN does not insert redzones >> around pages (only around slab allocations). >> So most likely the code should have not touch 0xffff880062c6f000 as it >> is not his memory. >> Also I noticed that the report happens after few minutes of repeatedly >> running this program, so I would expect that this is some kind of race >> -- either between kernel threads, or maybe between user space threads >> and kernel. > > I somehow think it's a race as well, especially as I have to run the > reproducer in an endless loop and break out of it once I have the 1st > stacktrace in dmesg. This takes between some minutes up to one hour on my > setup. > > But the race against a userspace thread... Could it be that the reproducer has > already exited it's threads while the copy_from_iter() is still running? > Normally I'd say no, as user-space shouldn't run while the kernel is doing > things in it's address space, but this is highly suspicious. > >> Or maybe it's just that the next page is not always marked >> as free, so we just don't detect the bad access. > > Could be, but I lack the memory management knowledge to say more than a 'could > be'. > >> >> Does it all make any sense to you? >> Can you think of any additional sanity checks that will ensure that >> this code copies only memory it owns? > > Given that we pass the 0xffff as dxfer_len it thinks it owns all memory, so > this is OK, kinda. All that could be would be that user-space has already > exited and thus it's memory is already freed. The crash happens in the context of sendfile syscall, we the address space should be alive. But the crash happens on address 0xffff880062c6f000 which is not a user-space address, right? This is something that kernel has allocated previously. Do you have CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC enabled? I have it enabled. Maybe it increases changes of triggering the bug. Do we know where that memory that we are copying was allocated? Is it slab or page alloc? We could extend KASAN output with more details. E.g. print allocation stack for the _first_ byte of memcpy, or memorize page alloc/free stacks in page struct using lib/stackdepot.c. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
