[PATCHv3] efi: apply memblock cap after memblock_add()
Leizhen (ThunderTown)
thunder.leizhen at huawei.com
Tue Dec 14 22:53:38 PST 2021
On 2021/12/15 13:29, Pingfan Liu wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 15, 2021 at 11:58:03AM +0800, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2021/12/15 10:13, Pingfan Liu wrote:
>>> On arm64, during kdump kernel saves vmcore, it runs into the following bug:
>>> ...
>>> [ 15.148919] usercopy: Kernel memory exposure attempt detected from SLUB object 'kmem_cache_node' (offset 0, size 4096)!
>>> [ 15.159707] ------------[ cut here ]------------
>>> [ 15.164311] kernel BUG at mm/usercopy.c:99!
>>> [ 15.168482] Internal error: Oops - BUG: 0 [#1] SMP
>>> [ 15.173261] Modules linked in: xfs libcrc32c crct10dif_ce ghash_ce sha2_ce sha256_arm64 sha1_ce sbsa_gwdt ast i2c_algo_bit drm_vram_helper drm_kms_helper syscopyarea sysfillrect sysimgblt fb_sys_fops cec drm_ttm_helper ttm drm nvme nvme_core xgene_hwmon i2c_designware_platform i2c_designware_core dm_mirror dm_region_hash dm_log dm_mod overlay squashfs zstd_decompress loop
>>> [ 15.206186] CPU: 0 PID: 542 Comm: cp Not tainted 5.16.0-rc4 #1
>>> [ 15.212006] Hardware name: GIGABYTE R272-P30-JG/MP32-AR0-JG, BIOS F12 (SCP: 1.5.20210426) 05/13/2021
>>> [ 15.221125] pstate: 60400009 (nZCv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
>>> [ 15.228073] pc : usercopy_abort+0x9c/0xa0
>>> [ 15.232074] lr : usercopy_abort+0x9c/0xa0
>>> [ 15.236070] sp : ffff8000121abba0
>>> [ 15.239371] x29: ffff8000121abbb0 x28: 0000000000003000 x27: 0000000000000000
>>> [ 15.246494] x26: 0000000080000400 x25: 0000ffff885c7000 x24: 0000000000000000
>>> [ 15.253617] x23: 000007ff80400000 x22: ffff07ff80401000 x21: 0000000000000001
>>> [ 15.260739] x20: 0000000000001000 x19: ffff07ff80400000 x18: ffffffffffffffff
>>> [ 15.267861] x17: 656a626f2042554c x16: 53206d6f72662064 x15: 6574636574656420
>>> [ 15.274983] x14: 74706d6574746120 x13: 2129363930342065 x12: 7a6973202c302074
>>> [ 15.282105] x11: ffffc8b041d1b148 x10: 00000000ffff8000 x9 : ffffc8b04012812c
>>> [ 15.289228] x8 : 00000000ffff7fff x7 : ffffc8b041d1b148 x6 : 0000000000000000
>>> [ 15.296349] x5 : 0000000000000000 x4 : 0000000000007fff x3 : 0000000000000000
>>> [ 15.303471] x2 : 0000000000000000 x1 : ffff07ff8c064800 x0 : 000000000000006b
>>> [ 15.310593] Call trace:
>>> [ 15.313027] usercopy_abort+0x9c/0xa0
>>> [ 15.316677] __check_heap_object+0xd4/0xf0
>>> [ 15.320762] __check_object_size.part.0+0x160/0x1e0
>>> [ 15.325628] __check_object_size+0x2c/0x40
>>> [ 15.329711] copy_oldmem_page+0x7c/0x140
>>> [ 15.333623] read_from_oldmem.part.0+0xfc/0x1c0
>>> [ 15.338142] __read_vmcore.constprop.0+0x23c/0x350
>>> [ 15.342920] read_vmcore+0x28/0x34
>>> [ 15.346309] proc_reg_read+0xb4/0xf0
>>> [ 15.349871] vfs_read+0xb8/0x1f0
>>> [ 15.353088] ksys_read+0x74/0x100
>>> [ 15.356390] __arm64_sys_read+0x28/0x34
>>> ...
>>>
>>> This bug introduced by commit b261dba2fdb2 ("arm64: kdump: Remove custom
>>> linux,usable-memory-range handling"), which moves
>>> memblock_cap_memory_range() to fdt, but it breaches the rules that
>>> memblock_cap_memory_range() should come after memblock_add() etc as said
>>> in commit e888fa7bb882 ("memblock: Check memory add/cap ordering").
>>
>> void __init early_init_dt_scan_nodes(void)
>> {
>> //(1) -->early_init_dt_check_for_usable_mem_range, fill cap_mem_addr
>> rc = of_scan_flat_dt(early_init_dt_scan_chosen, boot_command_line);
>>
>> //(2) --> early_init_dt_add_memory_arch --> memblock_add()
>> of_scan_flat_dt(early_init_dt_scan_memory, NULL);
>>
>> //(3)
>> memblock_cap_memory_range(cap_mem_addr, cap_mem_size);
>> }
>>
>> I didn't get it. The above step (1),(2),(3) comply with
>> commit e888fa7bb882 ("memblock: Check memory add/cap ordering")
>>
> Well, at this scope, it does. But from a larger scope, let's say on
> arm64,
> setup_arch
> ...
> setup_machine_fdt(); //which holds your case
> ...
> efi_init(); //which call memblock_add, and breach the ordering.
>
>> Did you see the warning?
>> pr_warn("%s: No memory registered yet\n", __func__);
>>
> Yes, I did see this message, which brings me to commit e888fa7bb882
> ("memblock: Check memory add/cap ordering")
>
> I am also curious why this bug does not be discovered. Is CONFIG_EFI
> on at your case?
Yes, Both X86 and ARM64, CONFIG_EFI=y. I used the defconfig.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pingfan
>>>
>>> As a consequence, the virtual address set up by copy_oldmem_page() does
>>> not bail out from the test of virt_addr_valid() in check_heap_object(),
>>> and finally hits the BUG_ON().
>>>
>>> Since memblock allocator has no idea about when the memblock is fully
>>> populated, while efi_init() is aware, so tackling this issue by calling the
>>> interface early_init_dt_check_for_usable_mem_range() exposed by of/fdt.
>>>
>>> Fixes: b261dba2fdb2 ("arm64: kdump: Remove custom linux,usable-memory-range handling")
>>> Signed-off-by: Pingfan Liu <kernelfans at gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt at kernel.org>
>>> Cc: Zhen Lei <thunder.leizhen at huawei.com>
>>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas at arm.com>
>>> Cc: Will Deacon <will at kernel.org>
>>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm at linux-foundation.org>
>>> Cc: Mike Rapoport <rppt at kernel.org>
>>> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas at glider.be>
>>> Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.list at gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb at kernel.org>
>>> Cc: Nick Terrell <terrelln at fb.com>
>>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
>>> To: devicetree at vger.kernel.org
>>> To: linux-efi at vger.kernel.org
>>> ---
>>> v2 -> v3:
>>> use static inline stub to avoid #ifdef according to Rob's suggestion
>>>
>>> drivers/firmware/efi/efi-init.c | 5 +++++
>>> drivers/of/fdt.c | 2 +-
>>> include/linux/of_fdt.h | 2 ++
>>> 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi-init.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi-init.c
>>> index b19ce1a83f91..b2c829e95bd1 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/efi-init.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/efi-init.c
>>> @@ -235,6 +235,11 @@ void __init efi_init(void)
>>> }
>>>
>>> reserve_regions();
>>> + /*
>>> + * For memblock manipulation, the cap should come after the memblock_add().
>>> + * And now, memblock is fully populated, it is time to do capping.
>>> + */
>>> + early_init_dt_check_for_usable_mem_range();
>>> efi_esrt_init();
>>> efi_mokvar_table_init();
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/of/fdt.c b/drivers/of/fdt.c
>>> index 18a2df431bfd..aa07ef5cab5f 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/of/fdt.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/of/fdt.c
>>> @@ -972,7 +972,7 @@ static unsigned long chosen_node_offset = -FDT_ERR_NOTFOUND;
>>> * location from flat tree
>>> * @node: reference to node containing usable memory range location ('chosen')
>>> */
>>> -static void __init early_init_dt_check_for_usable_mem_range(void)
>>> +void __init early_init_dt_check_for_usable_mem_range(void)
>>> {
>>> const __be32 *prop;
>>> int len;
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/of_fdt.h b/include/linux/of_fdt.h
>>> index cf48983d3c86..ad09beb6d13c 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/of_fdt.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/of_fdt.h
>>> @@ -62,6 +62,7 @@ extern int early_init_dt_scan_chosen(unsigned long node, const char *uname,
>>> int depth, void *data);
>>> extern int early_init_dt_scan_memory(unsigned long node, const char *uname,
>>> int depth, void *data);
>>> +extern void early_init_dt_check_for_usable_mem_range(void);
>>> extern int early_init_dt_scan_chosen_stdout(void);
>>> extern void early_init_fdt_scan_reserved_mem(void);
>>> extern void early_init_fdt_reserve_self(void);
>>> @@ -86,6 +87,7 @@ extern void unflatten_and_copy_device_tree(void);
>>> extern void early_init_devtree(void *);
>>> extern void early_get_first_memblock_info(void *, phys_addr_t *);
>>> #else /* CONFIG_OF_EARLY_FLATTREE */
>>> +static inline void early_init_dt_check_for_usable_mem_range(void) {}
>>> static inline int early_init_dt_scan_chosen_stdout(void) { return -ENODEV; }
>>> static inline void early_init_fdt_scan_reserved_mem(void) {}
>>> static inline void early_init_fdt_reserve_self(void) {}
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
> .
>
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list