On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 2:46 PM Borislav Petkov <b...@alien8.de> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 02:33:50PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote: > > ce_arr.array[] is always within the range [0, ce_arr.n-1]. > > However, the binary search code in __find_elem() uses ce_arr.n > > as the maximum index, which could lead to an off-by-one > > out-of-bound access right after the while loop. In this case, > > we should not even read it, just return -ENOKEY instead. > > > > Note, this could cause a kernel crash if ce_arr.n is exactly > > MAX_ELEMS. > > "Could cause"? > > I'm still waiting for a demonstration. You can build a case through > writing values in the debugfs nodes I pointed you at or even with a > patch ontop preparing the exact conditions for it to crash. And then > give me that "recipe" to trigger it here in a VM.
It is actually fairly easy: 1) Fill the whole page with PFN's: for i in `seq 0 511`; do echo $i >> /sys/kernel/debug/ras/cec/pfn; done 2) Set thresh to 1 in order to trigger the deletion: echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/ras/cec/count_threshold 3) Repeatedly add and remove the last element: echo 512 >> /sys/kernel/debug/ras/cec/pfn (until you get a crash.) In case you still don't get it, here it is: [ 57.732593] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at ffff9c667bca0000 [ 57.734994] #PF error: [PROT] [WRITE] [ 57.735891] PGD 75601067 P4D 75601067 PUD 75605067 PMD 7bca1063 PTE 800000007bca0061 [ 57.737702] Oops: 0003 [#1] SMP PTI [ 57.738533] CPU: 0 PID: 649 Comm: bash Not tainted 5.1.0-rc5+ #561 [ 57.739965] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS ?-20180724_192412-buildhw-07.phx2.fedoraproject.org-1.fc29 04/01/2014 [ 57.742892] RIP: 0010:__memmove+0x57/0x1a0 [ 57.743853] Code: 00 72 05 40 38 fe 74 3b 48 83 ea 20 48 83 ea 20 4c 8b 1e 4c 8b 56 08 4c 8b 4e 10 4c 8b 46 18 48 8d 76 20 4c 89 1f 4c 89 57 08 <4c> 89 4f 10 4c 89 47 18 48 8d 7f 20 73 d4 48 83 c2 20 e9 a2 00 00 [ 57.748150] RSP: 0018:ffffbe2ec0c8bdf8 EFLAGS: 00010206 [ 57.749371] RAX: ffff9c667a5c1ff0 RBX: 0000000000000001 RCX: 0000000000000ff8 [ 57.751018] RDX: 00000007fe921fb8 RSI: ffff9c667bca0018 RDI: ffff9c667bc9fff0 [ 57.752674] RBP: 0000000000000200 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000015c00000000 [ 57.754325] R10: 0000000000040001 R11: 5a5a5a5a5a5a5a5a R12: 0000000000000004 [ 57.755976] R13: ffff9c6671787778 R14: ffff9c6671787728 R15: ffff9c6671787750 [ 57.757631] FS: 00007f33ca294740(0000) GS:ffff9c667d800000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 [ 57.759689] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 [ 57.761023] CR2: ffff9c667bca0000 CR3: 000000007061e000 CR4: 00000000000406f0 [ 57.762681] Call Trace: [ 57.763275] del_elem.constprop.1+0x39/0x40 [ 57.764260] cec_add_elem+0x1e4/0x211 [ 57.765129] simple_attr_write+0xa2/0xc3 [ 57.766057] debugfs_attr_write+0x45/0x5c [ 57.767005] full_proxy_write+0x4b/0x65 [ 57.767911] ? full_proxy_poll+0x50/0x50 [ 57.768844] vfs_write+0xb8/0xf5 [ 57.769613] ksys_write+0x6b/0xb8 [ 57.770407] do_syscall_64+0x57/0x65 [ 57.771249] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe I will leave it as a homework for explaining why the crash is inside memmove(). ;) Thanks.
