lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Nov]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/4] x86/traps: Print non-canonical address on #GP

* Jann Horn <jannh@google.com> wrote:

> A frequent cause of #GP exceptions are memory accesses to non-canonical
> addresses. Unlike #PF, #GP doesn't come with a fault address in CR2, so
> the kernel doesn't currently print the fault address for #GP.
> Luckily, we already have the necessary infrastructure for decoding X86
> instructions and computing the memory address that is being accessed;
> hook it up to the #GP handler so that we can figure out whether the #GP
> looks like it was caused by a non-canonical address, and if so, print
> that address.
>
> While it is already possible to compute the faulting address manually by
> disassembling the opcode dump and evaluating the instruction against the
> register dump, this should make it slightly easier to identify crashes
> at a glance.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
> ---
>
> Notes:
> v2:
> - print different message for segment-related GP (Borislav)
> - rewrite check for non-canonical address (Sean)
> - make it clear we don't know for sure why the GP happened (Andy)
> v3:
> - change message format to one line (Borislav)
>
> I have already sent a patch to syzkaller that relaxes their parsing of GPF
> messages (https://github.com/google/syzkaller/commit/432c7650) such that
> changes like the one in this patch don't break it.
> That patch has already made its way into syzbot's syzkaller instances
> according to <https://syzkaller.appspot.com/upstream>.
>
> arch/x86/kernel/traps.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c b/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
> index c90312146da0..19afedcd6f4e 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/traps.c
> @@ -56,6 +56,8 @@
> #include <asm/mpx.h>
> #include <asm/vm86.h>
> #include <asm/umip.h>
> +#include <asm/insn.h>
> +#include <asm/insn-eval.h>
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> #include <asm/x86_init.h>
> @@ -509,11 +511,45 @@ dotraplinkage void do_bounds(struct pt_regs *regs, long error_code)
> do_trap(X86_TRAP_BR, SIGSEGV, "bounds", regs, error_code, 0, NULL);
> }
>
> +/*
> + * On 64-bit, if an uncaught #GP occurs while dereferencing a non-canonical
> + * address, return that address.
> + */
> +static unsigned long get_kernel_gp_address(struct pt_regs *regs)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> + u8 insn_bytes[MAX_INSN_SIZE];
> + struct insn insn;
> + unsigned long addr_ref;
> +
> + if (probe_kernel_read(insn_bytes, (void *)regs->ip, MAX_INSN_SIZE))
> + return 0;
> +
> + kernel_insn_init(&insn, insn_bytes, MAX_INSN_SIZE);
> + insn_get_modrm(&insn);
> + insn_get_sib(&insn);
> + addr_ref = (unsigned long)insn_get_addr_ref(&insn, regs);

I had to look twice to realize that the 'insn_bytes' isn't an integer
that shows the number of bytes in the instruction, but the instruction
buffer itself.

Could we please do s/insn_bytes/insn_buf or such?

> +
> + /* Bail out if insn_get_addr_ref() failed or we got a kernel address. */
> + if (addr_ref >= ~__VIRTUAL_MASK)
> + return 0;
> +
> + /* Bail out if the entire operand is in the canonical user half. */
> + if (addr_ref + insn.opnd_bytes - 1 <= __VIRTUAL_MASK)
> + return 0;

BTW., it would be nice to split this logic in two: return the faulting
address to do_general_protection(), and print it out both for
non-canonical and canonical addresses as well -and use the canonical
check to *additionally* print out a short note when the operand is
non-canonical?

> +#define GPFSTR "general protection fault"
> dotraplinkage void

Please separate macro and function definitions by an additional newline.

> do_general_protection(struct pt_regs *regs, long error_code)
> {
> - const char *desc = "general protection fault";
> struct task_struct *tsk;
> + char desc[90] = GPFSTR;


How was this maximum string length of '90' derived? In what way will that
have to change if someone changes the message?

Thanks,

Ingo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-11-20 12:21    [W:0.497 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site