Adding Simon who wrote the code.
Chandan Rajendra <chan...@linux.ibm.com> writes:
> When executing fstests' generic/026 test, I hit the following call trace,
>
> [ 417.061038] BUG: Unable to handle kernel data access at 0xc00000062ac40000
> [ 417.062172] Faulting instruction address: 0xc000000000092240
> [ 417.062242] Oops: Kernel access of bad area, sig: 11 [#1]
> [ 417.062299] LE SMP NR_CPUS=2048 DEBUG_PAGEALLOC NUMA pSeries
> [ 417.062366] Modules linked in:
> [ 417.062401] CPU: 0 PID: 27828 Comm: chacl Not tainted
> 5.0.0-rc2-next-20190115-00001-g6de6dba64dda #1
> [ 417.062495] NIP: c000000000092240 LR: c00000000066a55c CTR:
> 0000000000000000
> [ 417.062567] REGS: c00000062c0c3430 TRAP: 0300 Not tainted
> (5.0.0-rc2-next-20190115-00001-g6de6dba64dda)
> [ 417.062660] MSR: 8000000002009033 <SF,VEC,EE,ME,IR,DR,RI,LE> CR:
> 44000842 XER: 20000000
> [ 417.062750] CFAR: 00007fff7f3108ac DAR: c00000062ac40000 DSISR: 40000000
> IRQMASK: 0
> GPR00: 0000000000000000 c00000062c0c36c0 c0000000017f4c00
> c00000000121a660
> GPR04: c00000062ac3fff9 0000000000000004 0000000000000020
> 00000000275b19c4
> GPR08: 000000000000000c 46494c4500000000 5347495f41434c5f
> c0000000026073a0
> GPR12: 0000000000000000 c0000000027a0000 0000000000000000
> 0000000000000000
> GPR16: 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000
> 0000000000000000
> GPR20: c00000062ea70020 c00000062c0c38d0 0000000000000002
> 0000000000000002
> GPR24: c00000062ac3ffe8 00000000275b19c4 0000000000000001
> c00000062ac30000
> GPR28: c00000062c0c38d0 c00000062ac30050 c00000062ac30058
> 0000000000000000
> [ 417.063563] NIP [c000000000092240] memcmp+0x120/0x690
> [ 417.063635] LR [c00000000066a55c] xfs_attr3_leaf_lookup_int+0x53c/0x5b0
> [ 417.063709] Call Trace:
> [ 417.063744] [c00000062c0c36c0] [c00000000066a098]
> xfs_attr3_leaf_lookup_int+0x78/0x5b0 (unreliable)
> [ 417.063851] [c00000062c0c3760] [c000000000693f8c]
> xfs_da3_node_lookup_int+0x32c/0x5a0
> [ 417.063944] [c00000062c0c3820] [c0000000006634a0]
> xfs_attr_node_addname+0x170/0x6b0
> [ 417.064034] [c00000062c0c38b0] [c000000000664ffc] xfs_attr_set+0x2ac/0x340
> [ 417.064118] [c00000062c0c39a0] [c000000000758d40] __xfs_set_acl+0xf0/0x230
> [ 417.064190] [c00000062c0c3a00] [c000000000758f50] xfs_set_acl+0xd0/0x160
> [ 417.064268] [c00000062c0c3aa0] [c0000000004b69b0] set_posix_acl+0xc0/0x130
> [ 417.064339] [c00000062c0c3ae0] [c0000000004b6a88]
> posix_acl_xattr_set+0x68/0x110
> [ 417.064412] [c00000062c0c3b20] [c0000000004532d4] __vfs_setxattr+0xa4/0x110
> [ 417.064485] [c00000062c0c3b80] [c000000000454c2c]
> __vfs_setxattr_noperm+0xac/0x240
> [ 417.064566] [c00000062c0c3bd0] [c000000000454ee8] vfs_setxattr+0x128/0x130
> [ 417.064638] [c00000062c0c3c30] [c000000000455138] setxattr+0x248/0x600
> [ 417.064710] [c00000062c0c3d90] [c000000000455738] path_setxattr+0x108/0x120
> [ 417.064785] [c00000062c0c3e00] [c000000000455778] sys_setxattr+0x28/0x40
> [ 417.064858] [c00000062c0c3e20] [c00000000000bae4] system_call+0x5c/0x70
> [ 417.064930] Instruction dump:
> [ 417.064964] 7d201c28 7d402428 7c295040 38630008 38840008 408201f0 4200ffe8
> 2c050000
> [ 417.065051] 4182ff6c 20c50008 54c61838 7d201c28 <7d402428> 7d293436
> 7d4a3436 7c295040
> [ 417.065150] ---[ end trace 0d060411b5e3741b ]---
>
>
> Both the memory locations passed to memcmp() had "SGI_ACL_FILE" and len
> argument of memcmp() was set to 12. s1 argument of memcmp() had the value
> 0x00000000f4af0485, while s2 argument had the value 0x00000000ce9e316f.
>
> The following is the code path within memcmp() that gets executed for the
> above mentioned values,
>
> - Since len (i.e. 12) is greater than 7, we branch to .Lno_short.
> - We then prefetch the contents of r3 & r4 and branch to
> .Ldiffoffset_8bytes_make_align_start.
> - Under .Ldiffoffset_novmx_cmp, Since r3 is unaligned we end up comparing
> "SGI" part of the string. r3's value is then aligned. r4's value is
> incremented by 3. For comparing the remaining 9 bytes, we jump to
> .Lcmp_lt32bytes.
> - Here, 8 bytes of the remaining 9 bytes are compared and execution moves to
> .Lcmp_rest_lt8bytes.
> - Here we execute "LD rB,0,r4". In the case of this bug, r4 has an unaligned
> value and hence ends up accessing the "next" double word. The "next" double
> word happens to occur after the last page mapped into the kernel's address
> space and hence this leads to the previously listed oops.
Thanks for the analysis.
This is just a bug, we can't read past the end of the source or dest.
We have a selftest for memcmp, but clearly it doesn't exercise this
case. Here's a patch to try and trip it:
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/stringloops/memcmp.c
b/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/stringloops/memcmp.c
index b1fa7546957f..edca3abb6ecf 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/stringloops/memcmp.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/powerpc/stringloops/memcmp.c
@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
#include <malloc.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
+#include <sys/mman.h>
#include <time.h>
#include "utils.h"
@@ -68,25 +69,24 @@ static void test_one(char *s1, char *s2, unsigned long
max_offset,
static int testcase(bool islarge)
{
- char *s1;
- char *s2;
- unsigned long i;
-
- unsigned long comp_size = (islarge ? LARGE_SIZE : SIZE);
- unsigned long alloc_size = comp_size + MAX_OFFSET_DIFF_S1_S2;
- int iterations = islarge ? LARGE_ITERATIONS : ITERATIONS;
-
- s1 = memalign(128, alloc_size);
- if (!s1) {
- perror("memalign");
- exit(1);
- }
+ unsigned long i, comp_size, alloc_size, map_chunk;
+ char *p, *s1, *s2;
+ int iterations;
- s2 = memalign(128, alloc_size);
- if (!s2) {
- perror("memalign");
- exit(1);
- }
+ comp_size = (islarge ? LARGE_SIZE : SIZE);
+ alloc_size = comp_size + MAX_OFFSET_DIFF_S1_S2;
+ iterations = islarge ? LARGE_ITERATIONS : ITERATIONS;
+
+ map_chunk = 64 * 1024;
+ p = mmap(NULL, 4 * map_chunk, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
+ MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE, -1, 0);
+ FAIL_IF(p == MAP_FAILED);
+
+ s1 = p + map_chunk - alloc_size;
+ s2 = p + 3 * map_chunk - alloc_size;
+
+ munmap(p + map_chunk, map_chunk);
+ munmap(p + 3 * map_chunk, map_chunk);
srandom(time(0));
cheers
