lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: sudo x86info -a => kernel BUG at mm/usercopy.c:78!
From
Date


On 30.03.2017 23:01, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 12:52:31PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 09:45:26AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:44 PM, Tommi Rantala
> > > > <tommi.t.rantala@nokia.com> wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Running:
> > > > >
> > > > > $ sudo x86info -a
> > > > >
> > > > > On this HP ZBook 15 G3 laptop kills the x86info process with segfault and
> > > > > produces the following kernel BUG.
> > > > >
> > > > > $ git describe
> > > > > v4.11-rc4-40-gfe82203
> > > > >
> > > > > It is also reproducible with the fedora kernel: 4.9.14-200.fc25.x86_64
> > > > >
> > > > > Full dmesg output here: https://pastebin.com/raw/Kur2mpZq
> > > > >
> > > > > [ 51.418954] usercopy: kernel memory exposure attempt detected from
> > > > > ffff880000090000 (dma-kmalloc-256) (4096 bytes)
> > > >
> > > > This seems like a real exposure: the copy is attempting to read 4096
> > > > bytes from a 256 byte object.
> > >
> > > The code[1] is doing a 4k read from /dev/mem in the range 0x90000 -> 0xa0000
> > > According to arch/x86/mm/init.c:devmem_is_allowed, that's still valid..
> > >
> > > Note that the printk is using the direct mapping address. Is that what's
> > > being passed down to devmem_is_allowed now ? If so, that's probably what broke.
> >
> > So this is attempting to read physical memory 0x90000 -> 0xa0000, but
> > that's somehow resolving to a virtual address that is claimed by
> > dma-kmalloc?? I'm confused how that's happening...
>
> The only thing that I can think of would be a rogue ptr in the bios
> table, but that seems unlikely. Tommi, can you put strace of x86info -mp somewhere?
> That will confirm/deny whether we're at least asking the kernel to do sane things.

Indeed the bug happens when reading from /dev/mem:

https://pastebin.com/raw/ZEJGQP1X

# strace -f -y x86info -mp
[...]
open("/dev/mem", O_RDONLY) = 3</dev/mem>
lseek(3</dev/mem>, 1038, SEEK_SET) = 1038
read(3</dev/mem>, "\300\235", 2) = 2
lseek(3</dev/mem>, 646144, SEEK_SET) = 646144
read(3</dev/mem>,
"\1\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0"...,
1024) = 1024
lseek(3</dev/mem>, 1043, SEEK_SET) = 1043
read(3</dev/mem>, "w\2", 2) = 2
lseek(3</dev/mem>, 645120, SEEK_SET) = 645120
read(3</dev/mem>,
"\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0"...,
1024) = 1024
lseek(3</dev/mem>, 654336, SEEK_SET) = 654336
read(3</dev/mem>,
"\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0"...,
1024) = 1024
lseek(3</dev/mem>, 983040, SEEK_SET) = 983040
read(3</dev/mem>,
"IFE$\245S\0\0\1\0\0\0\0\360y\0\0\360\220\260\30\237{=\23\10\17\0000\276\17\0"...,
65536) = 65536
lseek(3</dev/mem>, 917504, SEEK_SET) = 917504
read(3</dev/mem>,
"\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377\377"...,
65536) = 65536
lseek(3</dev/mem>, 524288, SEEK_SET) = 524288
read(3</dev/mem>, <unfinished ...>) = ?
+++ killed by SIGSEGV +++

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-03-31 07:42    [W:0.144 / U:0.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site