lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jan]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] To fix the below failure of handling page fault caused by the invalid input from user.
From
Hi Dongyang,

On 1/26/22 03:42, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 17:19:52 +0800 Dongyang Wang <dongyang.wang@windriver.com> wrote:
>
>> [786058.308965] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 01000004
>> [786058.316286] pgd = 38a99693
>> [786058.319080] [01000004] *pgd=07800003, *pmd=00000000
>> [786058.324056] Internal error: Oops: 206 [#1] PREEMPT SMP ARM
>> [786058.324100] CPU: PID: Comm: Tainted: G C
>> [786058.324102] Hardware name:
>> [786058.324114] PC is at __copy_to_user_std+0x4c/0x3c4
>> [786058.324120] LR is at store_msg+0xc0/0xe8
>> [786058.324124] pc : [<c0c0587c>] lr : [<c0871d04>] psr: 20010013
>> [786058.324126] sp : c3503ec4 ip : 00000000 fp : b4c9a660
>> [786058.324129] r10: c4228dc0 r9 : c3502000 r8 : 00000ffc
>> [786058.324132] r7 : 01000000 r6 : 546d3f8b r5 : b4911690 r4 : 00000ffc
>> [786058.324134] r3 : 00000000 r2 : 00000f7c r1 : 01000004 r0 : b4911690
>> [786058.324139] Flags: nzCv IRQs on FIQs on Mode SVC_32 ISA ARM Segment user
>> [786058.324142] Control: 30c5387d Table: 0edc2040 DAC: 55555555
>> [786058.324145] Process (pid: , stack limit = 0x25018bdf)

Why is process and pid: empty? Is this some kind of kernel process calling?


>> [786058.324148] Stack: (0xc3503ec4 to 0xc3504000)
>> [786058.324153] 3ec0: b4911690 546d3f8b 01000000 00000ffc b4911690 00000ffc 00000000
>> [786058.324157] 3ee0: 00000ffc c0871d04 546d4f73 c3407801 c3503f28 c3407800 00000000 b49106a8
>> [786058.324161] 3f00: c4228dc0 c087abd4 00000002 b49106a8 617b9d03 00000000 00000000 c121d508
>> [786058.324165] 3f20: 00000000 bf06a1a8 d1b634cc 16b26e77 c5af5280 00000100 00000200 db806540
>> [786058.324170] 3f40: 00000001 c121d508 00000008 0000005c 00000000 00010008 b49106a8 c0601208
>> [786058.324173] 3f60: c3502000 00000040 b4c9a660 c087b474 c3503f78 c121d508 617b9d03 00000000
>> [786058.324177] 3f80: 2303d6cc 00000115 c0601208 c121d508 b4c9a660 b4c9a660 00000001 b49106a8
>> [786058.324181] 3fa0: 00000115 c06011dc b4c9a660 00000001 0000005c b49106a8 00010008 00000000
>> [786058.324185] 3fc0: b4c9a660 00000001 b49106a8 00000115 00000000 b4c9b400 00000000 b4c9a660
>> [786058.324189] 3fe0: 00000115 b4c9a650 b6b253bd b6b254b6 800d0030 0000005c 00000000 00000000
>> [786058.324201] [<c0c0587c>] (__copy_to_user_std) from [<c0871d04>] (store_msg+0xc0/0xe8)
>> [786058.324211] [<c0871d04>] (store_msg) from [<c087abd4>] (do_mq_timedreceive+0x29c/0x484)
>> [786058.324218] [<c087abd4>] (do_mq_timedreceive) from [<c087b474>] (sys_mq_timedreceive+0x88/0xbc)
>> [786058.324226] [<c087b474>] (sys_mq_timedreceive) from [<c06011dc>] (__sys_trace_return+0x0/0x10)
>> [786058.324229] Exception stack(0xc3503fa8 to 0xc3503ff0)
>> [786058.324233] 3fa0: b4c9a660 00000001 0000005c b49106a8 00010008 00000000
>> [786058.324236] 3fc0: b4c9a660 00000001 b49106a8 00000115 00000000 b4c9b400 00000000 b4c9a660
>> [786058.324239] 3fe0: 00000115 b4c9a650 b6b253bd b6b254b6
>> [786058.324247] Code: ba000002 f5d1f03c f5d1f05c f5d1f07c (e8b151f8)
>> [786058.601808] ---[ end trace 0000000000000002 ]---
>>
>> ...
>>
> Please describe the circumstances under which this occurs.
>
> Please also describe how your proposed patch fixes this.
>
>> --- a/ipc/mqueue.c
>> +++ b/ipc/mqueue.c
>> @@ -1211,6 +1211,12 @@ static int do_mq_timedreceive(mqd_t mqdes, char __user *u_msg_ptr,
>> goto out_fput;
>> }
>>
>> + /* checks if buffer is invalid */
>> + if ((unsigned long) u_msg_ptr < PAGE_SIZE) {
>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>> + goto out_fput;
>> + }
>> +

I do not think that this will solve the problem: u_msg_ptr is user
controlled.

If < PAGE_SIZE causes issues, then 2^32-1, or PAGE_SIZE+1 will cause
issues as well.

What is the kernel version where you have observed the issue?

>> /*
>> * msg_insert really wants us to have a valid, spare node struct so
>> * it doesn't have to kmalloc a GFP_ATOMIC allocation, but it will
>> @@ -1262,6 +1268,10 @@ static int do_mq_timedreceive(mqd_t mqdes, char __user *u_msg_ptr,
>> store_msg(u_msg_ptr, msg_ptr, msg_ptr->m_ts)) {
>> ret = -EFAULT;
>> }
>> +
>> + if (msg_len < ret)
>> + ret = -EMSGSIZE;
>> +

Why this change?

EMSGSIZE means right now: wrong parameters, no message removed from the
queue.

But: in the line you modify, a message was already removed from the
queue. Thus I would not consider EMSGSIZE as appropriate.

>> free_msg(msg_ptr);
>> }
>> out_fput:
>> --
>> 2.26.1


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-01-26 17:53    [W:1.192 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site