Haibo Li reported:
| Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address | ffffff802a0d8d7171 | Mem abort info:o: | ESR = 0x9600002121 | EC = 0x25: DABT (current EL), IL = 32 bitsts | SET = 0, FnV = 0 0 | EA = 0, S1PTW = 0 0 | FSC = 0x21: alignment fault | Data abort info:o: | ISV = 0, ISS = 0x0000002121 | CM = 0, WnR = 0 0 | swapper pgtable: 4k pages, 39-bit VAs, pgdp=000000002835200000 | [ffffff802a0d8d71] pgd=180000005fbf9003, p4d=180000005fbf9003, | pud=180000005fbf9003, pmd=180000005fbe8003, pte=006800002a0d8707 | Internal error: Oops: 96000021 [#1] PREEMPT SMP | Modules linked in: | CPU: 2 PID: 45 Comm: kworker/u8:2 Not tainted | 5.15.78-android13-8-g63561175bbda-dirty #1 | ... | pc : kcsan_setup_watchpoint+0x26c/0x6bc | lr : kcsan_setup_watchpoint+0x88/0x6bc | sp : ffffffc00ab4b7f0 | x29: ffffffc00ab4b800 x28: ffffff80294fe588 x27: 0000000000000001 | x26: 0000000000000019 x25: 0000000000000001 x24: ffffff80294fdb80 | x23: 0000000000000000 x22: ffffffc00a70fb68 x21: ffffff802a0d8d71 | x20: 0000000000000002 x19: 0000000000000000 x18: ffffffc00a9bd060 | x17: 0000000000000001 x16: 0000000000000000 x15: ffffffc00a59f000 | x14: 0000000000000001 x13: 0000000000000000 x12: ffffffc00a70faa0 | x11: 00000000aaaaaaab x10: 0000000000000054 x9 : ffffffc00839adf8 | x8 : ffffffc009b4cf00 x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : 0000000000000007 | x5 : 0000000000000000 x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 : ffffffc00a70fb70 | x2 : 0005ff802a0d8d71 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : 0000000000000000 | Call trace: | kcsan_setup_watchpoint+0x26c/0x6bc | __tsan_read2+0x1f0/0x234 | inflate_fast+0x498/0x750 | zlib_inflate+0x1304/0x2384 | __gunzip+0x3a0/0x45c | gunzip+0x20/0x30 | unpack_to_rootfs+0x2a8/0x3fc | do_populate_rootfs+0xe8/0x11c | async_run_entry_fn+0x58/0x1bc | process_one_work+0x3ec/0x738 | worker_thread+0x4c4/0x838 | kthread+0x20c/0x258 | ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 | Code: b8bfc2a8 2a0803f7 14000007 d503249f (78bfc2a8) ) | ---[ end trace 613a943cb0a572b6 ]-----
The reason for this is that on certain arm64 configuration since e35123d83ee3 ("arm64: lto: Strengthen READ_ONCE() to acquire when CONFIG_LTO=y"), READ_ONCE() may be promoted to a full atomic acquire instruction which cannot be used on unaligned addresses.
Fix it by avoiding READ_ONCE() in read_instrumented_memory(), and simply forcing the compiler to do the required access by casting to the appropriate volatile type. In terms of generated code this currently only affects architectures that do not use the default READ_ONCE() implementation.
The only downside is that we are not guaranteed atomicity of the access itself, although on most architectures a plain load up to machine word size should still be atomic (a fact the default READ_ONCE() still relies on itself).
Reported-by: Haibo Li haibo.li@mediatek.com Tested-by: Haibo Li haibo.li@mediatek.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.17+ Signed-off-by: Marco Elver elver@google.com --- kernel/kcsan/core.c | 17 +++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/kcsan/core.c b/kernel/kcsan/core.c index 54d077e1a2dc..5a60cc52adc0 100644 --- a/kernel/kcsan/core.c +++ b/kernel/kcsan/core.c @@ -337,11 +337,20 @@ static void delay_access(int type) */ static __always_inline u64 read_instrumented_memory(const volatile void *ptr, size_t size) { + /* + * In the below we don't necessarily need the read of the location to + * be atomic, and we don't use READ_ONCE(), since all we need for race + * detection is to observe 2 different values. + * + * Furthermore, on certain architectures (such as arm64), READ_ONCE() + * may turn into more complex instructions than a plain load that cannot + * do unaligned accesses. + */ switch (size) { - case 1: return READ_ONCE(*(const u8 *)ptr); - case 2: return READ_ONCE(*(const u16 *)ptr); - case 4: return READ_ONCE(*(const u32 *)ptr); - case 8: return READ_ONCE(*(const u64 *)ptr); + case 1: return *(const volatile u8 *)ptr; + case 2: return *(const volatile u16 *)ptr; + case 4: return *(const volatile u32 *)ptr; + case 8: return *(const volatile u64 *)ptr; default: return 0; /* Ignore; we do not diff the values. */ } }
On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 11:17:52AM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
Haibo Li reported:
| Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address | ffffff802a0d8d7171 | Mem abort info:o: | ESR = 0x9600002121 | EC = 0x25: DABT (current EL), IL = 32 bitsts | SET = 0, FnV = 0 0 | EA = 0, S1PTW = 0 0 | FSC = 0x21: alignment fault | Data abort info:o: | ISV = 0, ISS = 0x0000002121 | CM = 0, WnR = 0 0 | swapper pgtable: 4k pages, 39-bit VAs, pgdp=000000002835200000 | [ffffff802a0d8d71] pgd=180000005fbf9003, p4d=180000005fbf9003, | pud=180000005fbf9003, pmd=180000005fbe8003, pte=006800002a0d8707 | Internal error: Oops: 96000021 [#1] PREEMPT SMP | Modules linked in: | CPU: 2 PID: 45 Comm: kworker/u8:2 Not tainted | 5.15.78-android13-8-g63561175bbda-dirty #1 | ... | pc : kcsan_setup_watchpoint+0x26c/0x6bc | lr : kcsan_setup_watchpoint+0x88/0x6bc | sp : ffffffc00ab4b7f0 | x29: ffffffc00ab4b800 x28: ffffff80294fe588 x27: 0000000000000001 | x26: 0000000000000019 x25: 0000000000000001 x24: ffffff80294fdb80 | x23: 0000000000000000 x22: ffffffc00a70fb68 x21: ffffff802a0d8d71 | x20: 0000000000000002 x19: 0000000000000000 x18: ffffffc00a9bd060 | x17: 0000000000000001 x16: 0000000000000000 x15: ffffffc00a59f000 | x14: 0000000000000001 x13: 0000000000000000 x12: ffffffc00a70faa0 | x11: 00000000aaaaaaab x10: 0000000000000054 x9 : ffffffc00839adf8 | x8 : ffffffc009b4cf00 x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : 0000000000000007 | x5 : 0000000000000000 x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 : ffffffc00a70fb70 | x2 : 0005ff802a0d8d71 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : 0000000000000000 | Call trace: | kcsan_setup_watchpoint+0x26c/0x6bc | __tsan_read2+0x1f0/0x234 | inflate_fast+0x498/0x750 | zlib_inflate+0x1304/0x2384 | __gunzip+0x3a0/0x45c | gunzip+0x20/0x30 | unpack_to_rootfs+0x2a8/0x3fc | do_populate_rootfs+0xe8/0x11c | async_run_entry_fn+0x58/0x1bc | process_one_work+0x3ec/0x738 | worker_thread+0x4c4/0x838 | kthread+0x20c/0x258 | ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 | Code: b8bfc2a8 2a0803f7 14000007 d503249f (78bfc2a8) ) | ---[ end trace 613a943cb0a572b6 ]-----
The reason for this is that on certain arm64 configuration since e35123d83ee3 ("arm64: lto: Strengthen READ_ONCE() to acquire when CONFIG_LTO=y"), READ_ONCE() may be promoted to a full atomic acquire instruction which cannot be used on unaligned addresses.
Fix it by avoiding READ_ONCE() in read_instrumented_memory(), and simply forcing the compiler to do the required access by casting to the appropriate volatile type. In terms of generated code this currently only affects architectures that do not use the default READ_ONCE() implementation.
The only downside is that we are not guaranteed atomicity of the access itself, although on most architectures a plain load up to machine word size should still be atomic (a fact the default READ_ONCE() still relies on itself).
Reported-by: Haibo Li haibo.li@mediatek.com Tested-by: Haibo Li haibo.li@mediatek.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.17+ Signed-off-by: Marco Elver elver@google.com
Queued, thank you!
This one looks like it might want to go into v6.4 rather than later.
Thanx, Paul
kernel/kcsan/core.c | 17 +++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/kcsan/core.c b/kernel/kcsan/core.c index 54d077e1a2dc..5a60cc52adc0 100644 --- a/kernel/kcsan/core.c +++ b/kernel/kcsan/core.c @@ -337,11 +337,20 @@ static void delay_access(int type) */ static __always_inline u64 read_instrumented_memory(const volatile void *ptr, size_t size) {
- /*
* In the below we don't necessarily need the read of the location to* be atomic, and we don't use READ_ONCE(), since all we need for race* detection is to observe 2 different values.** Furthermore, on certain architectures (such as arm64), READ_ONCE()* may turn into more complex instructions than a plain load that cannot* do unaligned accesses.*/
- case 1: return READ_ONCE(*(const u8 *)ptr);
- case 2: return READ_ONCE(*(const u16 *)ptr);
- case 4: return READ_ONCE(*(const u32 *)ptr);
- case 8: return READ_ONCE(*(const u64 *)ptr);
- case 1: return *(const volatile u8 *)ptr;
- case 2: return *(const volatile u16 *)ptr;
- case 4: return *(const volatile u32 *)ptr;
- case 8: return *(const volatile u64 *)ptr; default: return 0; /* Ignore; we do not diff the values. */ }
}
2.40.0.rc1.284.g88254d51c5-goog
On Thu, 9 Mar 2023 at 23:08, Paul E. McKenney paulmck@kernel.org wrote:
On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 11:17:52AM +0100, Marco Elver wrote:
Haibo Li reported:
| Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address | ffffff802a0d8d7171 | Mem abort info:o: | ESR = 0x9600002121 | EC = 0x25: DABT (current EL), IL = 32 bitsts | SET = 0, FnV = 0 0 | EA = 0, S1PTW = 0 0 | FSC = 0x21: alignment fault | Data abort info:o: | ISV = 0, ISS = 0x0000002121 | CM = 0, WnR = 0 0 | swapper pgtable: 4k pages, 39-bit VAs, pgdp=000000002835200000 | [ffffff802a0d8d71] pgd=180000005fbf9003, p4d=180000005fbf9003, | pud=180000005fbf9003, pmd=180000005fbe8003, pte=006800002a0d8707 | Internal error: Oops: 96000021 [#1] PREEMPT SMP | Modules linked in: | CPU: 2 PID: 45 Comm: kworker/u8:2 Not tainted | 5.15.78-android13-8-g63561175bbda-dirty #1 | ... | pc : kcsan_setup_watchpoint+0x26c/0x6bc | lr : kcsan_setup_watchpoint+0x88/0x6bc | sp : ffffffc00ab4b7f0 | x29: ffffffc00ab4b800 x28: ffffff80294fe588 x27: 0000000000000001 | x26: 0000000000000019 x25: 0000000000000001 x24: ffffff80294fdb80 | x23: 0000000000000000 x22: ffffffc00a70fb68 x21: ffffff802a0d8d71 | x20: 0000000000000002 x19: 0000000000000000 x18: ffffffc00a9bd060 | x17: 0000000000000001 x16: 0000000000000000 x15: ffffffc00a59f000 | x14: 0000000000000001 x13: 0000000000000000 x12: ffffffc00a70faa0 | x11: 00000000aaaaaaab x10: 0000000000000054 x9 : ffffffc00839adf8 | x8 : ffffffc009b4cf00 x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : 0000000000000007 | x5 : 0000000000000000 x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 : ffffffc00a70fb70 | x2 : 0005ff802a0d8d71 x1 : 0000000000000000 x0 : 0000000000000000 | Call trace: | kcsan_setup_watchpoint+0x26c/0x6bc | __tsan_read2+0x1f0/0x234 | inflate_fast+0x498/0x750 | zlib_inflate+0x1304/0x2384 | __gunzip+0x3a0/0x45c | gunzip+0x20/0x30 | unpack_to_rootfs+0x2a8/0x3fc | do_populate_rootfs+0xe8/0x11c | async_run_entry_fn+0x58/0x1bc | process_one_work+0x3ec/0x738 | worker_thread+0x4c4/0x838 | kthread+0x20c/0x258 | ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 | Code: b8bfc2a8 2a0803f7 14000007 d503249f (78bfc2a8) ) | ---[ end trace 613a943cb0a572b6 ]-----
The reason for this is that on certain arm64 configuration since e35123d83ee3 ("arm64: lto: Strengthen READ_ONCE() to acquire when CONFIG_LTO=y"), READ_ONCE() may be promoted to a full atomic acquire instruction which cannot be used on unaligned addresses.
Fix it by avoiding READ_ONCE() in read_instrumented_memory(), and simply forcing the compiler to do the required access by casting to the appropriate volatile type. In terms of generated code this currently only affects architectures that do not use the default READ_ONCE() implementation.
The only downside is that we are not guaranteed atomicity of the access itself, although on most architectures a plain load up to machine word size should still be atomic (a fact the default READ_ONCE() still relies on itself).
Reported-by: Haibo Li haibo.li@mediatek.com Tested-by: Haibo Li haibo.li@mediatek.com Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.17+ Signed-off-by: Marco Elver elver@google.com
Queued, thank you!
This one looks like it might want to go into v6.4 rather than later.
Yes, I think that'd be appropriate - thank you!
Thanks, -- Marco
linux-stable-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Marco Elver -
Paul E. McKenney