lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
SubjectRe: BUG: /proc/kcore does not export direct-mapped memory on arm64 (and presumably some other architectures)
From
Date
On 04/26/2018 02:16 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Dave Anderson <anderson@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> While testing /proc/kcore as the live memory source for the crash utility,
>> it fails on arm64. The failure on arm64 occurs because only the
>> vmalloc/module space segments are exported in PT_LOAD segments,
>> and it's missing all of the PT_LOAD segments for the generic
>> unity-mapped regions of physical memory, as well as their associated
>> vmemmap sections.
>>
>> The mapping of unity-mapped RAM segments in fs/proc/kcore.c is
>> architecture-neutral, and after debugging it, I found this as the
>> problem. For each chunk of physical memory, kcore_update_ram()
>> calls walk_system_ram_range(), passing kclist_add_private() as a
>> callback function to add the chunk to the kclist, and eventually
>> leading to the creation of a PT_LOAD segment.
>>
>> kclist_add_private() does some verification of the memory region,
>> but this one below is bogus for arm64:
>>
>> static int
>> kclist_add_private(unsigned long pfn, unsigned long nr_pages, void *arg)
>> {
>> ... [ cut ] ...
>> ent->addr = (unsigned long)__va((pfn << PAGE_SHIFT));
>> ... [ cut ] ...
>>
>> /* Sanity check: Can happen in 32bit arch...maybe */
>> if (ent->addr < (unsigned long) __va(0))
>> goto free_out;
>>
>> And that's because __va(0) is a bogus check for arm64. It is checking
>> whether the ent->addr value is less than the lowest possible unity-mapped
>> address. But "0" should not be used as a physical address on arm64; the
>> lowest legitimate physical address for this __va() check would be the arm64
>> PHYS_OFFSET, or memstart_addr:
>>
>> Here's the arm64 __va() and PHYS_OFFSET:
>>
>> #define __va(x) ((void *)__phys_to_virt((phys_addr_t)(x)))
>> #define __phys_to_virt(x) ((unsigned long)((x) - PHYS_OFFSET) | PAGE_OFFSET)
>>
>> extern s64 memstart_addr;
>> /* PHYS_OFFSET - the physical address of the start of memory. */
>> #define PHYS_OFFSET ({ VM_BUG_ON(memstart_addr & 1); memstart_addr; })
>>
>> If PHYS_OFFSET/memstart_addr is anything other than 0 (it is 0x4000000000 on my
>> test system), the __va(0) calculation goes negative and creates a bogus, very
>> large, virtual address. And since the ent->addr virtual address is less than
>> bogus __va(0) address, the test fails, and the memory chunk is rejected.
>>
>> Looking at the kernel sources, it seems that this would affect other
>> architectures as well, i.e., the ones whose __va() is not a simple
>> addition of the physical address with PAGE_OFFSET.
>>
>> Anyway, I don't know what the best approach for an architecture-neutral
>> fix would be in this case. So I figured I'd throw it out to you guys for
>> some ideas.
>
> I'm not as familiar with this code, but I've added Ard and Laura to CC
> here, as this feels like something they'd be able to comment on. :)
>
> -Kees
>

It seems backwards that we're converting a physical address to
a virtual address and then validating that. I think checking against
pfn_valid (to ensure there is a valid memmap entry)
and then checking page_to_virt against virt_addr_valid to catch
other cases (e.g. highmem or holes in the space) seems cleaner.
Maybe something like:

diff --git a/fs/proc/kcore.c b/fs/proc/kcore.c
index d1e82761de81..e64ecb9f2720 100644
--- a/fs/proc/kcore.c
+++ b/fs/proc/kcore.c
@@ -209,25 +209,34 @@ kclist_add_private(unsigned long pfn, unsigned long nr_pages, void *arg)
{
struct list_head *head = (struct list_head *)arg;
struct kcore_list *ent;
+ struct page *p;
+
+ if (!pfn_valid(pfn))
+ return 1;
+
+ p = pfn_to_page(pfn);
+ if (!memmap_valid_within(pfn, p, page_zone(p)))
+ return 1;

ent = kmalloc(sizeof(*ent), GFP_KERNEL);
if (!ent)
return -ENOMEM;
- ent->addr = (unsigned long)__va((pfn << PAGE_SHIFT));
+ ent->addr = (unsigned long)page_to_virt(p);
ent->size = nr_pages << PAGE_SHIFT;

- /* Sanity check: Can happen in 32bit arch...maybe */
- if (ent->addr < (unsigned long) __va(0))
+ if (!virt_addr_valid(ent->addr))
goto free_out;

/* cut not-mapped area. ....from ppc-32 code. */
if (ULONG_MAX - ent->addr < ent->size)
ent->size = ULONG_MAX - ent->addr;

- /* cut when vmalloc() area is higher than direct-map area */
- if (VMALLOC_START > (unsigned long)__va(0)) {
- if (ent->addr > VMALLOC_START)
- goto free_out;
+ /*
+ * We've already checked virt_addr_valid so we know this address
+ * is a valid pointer, therefore we can check against it to determine
+ * if we need to trim
+ */
+ if (VMALLOC_START > ent->addr) {
if (VMALLOC_START - ent->addr < ent->size)
ent->size = VMALLOC_START - ent->addr;
}
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-28 02:58    [W:0.055 / U:0.208 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site