lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] UML: add support for KASAN under x86_64
From
Date
On Wed, 2020-03-11 at 18:34 +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:

> > $ gdb -p ...
> > (gdb) p/x task_size
> > $1 = 0x7fc0000000
> > (gdb) p/x __end_of_fixed_addresses
> > $2 = 0x0
> > (gdb) p/x end_iomem
> > $3 = 0x70000000
> > (gdb) p/x __va_space
> >
> > #define TASK_SIZE (task_size)
> > #define FIXADDR_TOP (TASK_SIZE - 2 * PAGE_SIZE)
> >
> > #define FIXADDR_START (FIXADDR_TOP - FIXADDR_SIZE)
> > #define FIXADDR_SIZE (__end_of_fixed_addresses << PAGE_SHIFT)
> >
> > #define VMALLOC_END (FIXADDR_START-2*PAGE_SIZE)
> >
> > #define MODULES_VADDR VMALLOC_START
> > #define MODULES_END VMALLOC_END
> > #define VMALLOC_START ((end_iomem + VMALLOC_OFFSET) & ~(VMALLOC_OFFSET-1))
> > #define VMALLOC_OFFSET (__va_space)
> > #define __va_space (8*1024*1024)
> >
> >
> > So from that, it would look like the UML vmalloc area is from
> > 0x 70800000 all the way to
> > 0x7fbfffc000, which obviously clashes with the KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET being
> > just 0x7fff8000.
> >
> >
> > I'm guessing that basically the module loading overwrote the kasan
> > shadow then?
>
> Well, ok, this is definitely not going to fly :)

Yeah, not with vmalloc/modules at least, but you can't really prevent
vmalloc :)

> I don't know if it's easy to move modules to a different location.

We'd have to not just move modules, but also vmalloc space. They're one
and the same in UML.

> It
> would be nice because 0x7fbfffc000 is the shadow start that's used in
> userspace asan and it allows to faster instrumentation (if offset is
> within first 2 gigs, the instruction encoding is much more compact,
> for >2gigs it will require several instructions).

Wait ... Now you say 0x7fbfffc000, but that is almost fine? I think you
confused the values - because I see, on userspace, the following:

|| `[0x10007fff8000, 0x7fffffffffff]` || HighMem ||
|| `[0x02008fff7000, 0x10007fff7fff]` || HighShadow ||
|| `[0x00008fff7000, 0x02008fff6fff]` || ShadowGap ||
|| `[0x00007fff8000, 0x00008fff6fff]` || LowShadow ||
|| `[0x000000000000, 0x00007fff7fff]` || LowMem ||


Now, I also don't really understand what UML is doing here -
os_get_top_address() determines some sort of "top address"? But all that
is only on 32-bit, on 64-bit, that's always 0x7fc0000000.

So basically that means it's just _slightly_ higher than what you
suggested as the KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET now (even if erroneously?), and
shouldn't actually clash (and we can just change the top address value
to be slightly lower anyway to prevent clashing).

> But if it's not really easy, I guess we go with a large shadow start
> (at least initially). A slower but working KASAN is better than fast
> non-working KASAN :)

Indeed, but I can't even get it to work regardless of the offset.

Note that I have lockdep enabled, and at least some crashes appear to be
because of the stack unwinding code that is called by lockdep in various
situations...

> > I tried changing it
> >
> > config KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET
> > hex
> > depends on KASAN
> > - default 0x7fff8000
> > + default 0x8000000000
> >
> >
> > and also put a check in like this:
> >
> > +++ b/arch/um/kernel/um_arch.c
> > @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
> > #include <linux/sched.h>
> > #include <linux/sched/task.h>
> > #include <linux/kmsg_dump.h>
> > +#include <linux/kasan.h>
> >
> > #include <asm/pgtable.h>
> > #include <asm/processor.h>
> > @@ -267,9 +268,11 @@ int __init linux_main(int argc, char **argv)
> > /*
> > * TASK_SIZE needs to be PGDIR_SIZE aligned or else exit_mmap craps
> > * out
> > */
> > task_size = host_task_size & PGDIR_MASK;
> >
> > + if (task_size > KASAN_SHADOW_OFFSET)
> > + panic("KASAN shadow offset must be bigger than task size");
> >
> >
> > but now I just crash accessing the shadow even though it was mapped fine?
>
> Yes, this is puzzling.
> I noticed that RIP is the same in both cases and it relates to vmap code.
> A support for shadow for vmalloced-memory was added to KASAN recently
> and I suspect it may conflict with UML.

This can't be it - HAVE_ARCH_KASAN_VMALLOC isn't selected, so
KASAN_VMALLOC isn't set.

> What does pte-manipulation code even do under UML?

No idea.

> Looking at the code around, kasan_mem_notifier may be a problem too,
> or at least excessive and confusing. We already have shadow for
> everything, we don't need _any_ of dynamic/lazy shadow mapping.

CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG is also not supported in ARCH=um, or at least not
used in my config.

johannes

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-03-20 14:39    [W:0.091 / U:24.536 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site