arch/x86/kernel/time.c | 20 ++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
Syzbot has been reporting the problem of stack-out-of-bounds in
profile_pc for a long time:
https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=84fe685c02cd112a2ac3
profile_pc tries to get pc if current regs is inside lock function. For
!CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER it used a hack way to get the pc from stack, which
is not work with ORC. It makes profile_pc returns wrong result, and
frequently triggers KASAN.
This can be fixed by using the unwind_start, it will skip the first
regs frame and get the caller of lock function directly, or 0 if
unwind_get_return_address finds the unwinding failed. For all of FP, ORC
and guess unwinders it works.
Fixes: 0cb91a229364 ("[PATCH] i386: Account spinlocks to the caller during profiling for !FP kernels")
Reported-by: syzbot+84fe685c02cd112a2ac3@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Signed-off-by: Chen Zhongjin <chenzhongjin@huawei.com>
---
arch/x86/kernel/time.c | 20 ++++++--------------
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/time.c b/arch/x86/kernel/time.c
index e42faa792c07..5e0446f49906 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/time.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/time.c
@@ -24,26 +24,18 @@
#include <asm/timer.h>
#include <asm/hpet.h>
#include <asm/time.h>
+#include <asm/unwind.h>
unsigned long profile_pc(struct pt_regs *regs)
{
unsigned long pc = instruction_pointer(regs);
if (!user_mode(regs) && in_lock_functions(pc)) {
-#ifdef CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER
- return *(unsigned long *)(regs->bp + sizeof(long));
-#else
- unsigned long *sp = (unsigned long *)regs->sp;
- /*
- * Return address is either directly at stack pointer
- * or above a saved flags. Eflags has bits 22-31 zero,
- * kernel addresses don't.
- */
- if (sp[0] >> 22)
- return sp[0];
- if (sp[1] >> 22)
- return sp[1];
-#endif
+ struct unwind_state state;
+
+ /* unwind_start will skip the first regs frame */
+ unwind_start(&state, current, regs, NULL);
+ pc = unwind_get_return_address(&state);
}
return pc;
}
--
2.17.1
Just ping... Or has profile code already been obsoleted? On 2023/2/24 10:18, chenzhongjin wrote: > Syzbot has been reporting the problem of stack-out-of-bounds in > profile_pc for a long time: > https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=84fe685c02cd112a2ac3 > > profile_pc tries to get pc if current regs is inside lock function. For > !CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER it used a hack way to get the pc from stack, which > is not work with ORC. It makes profile_pc returns wrong result, and > frequently triggers KASAN. > > This can be fixed by using the unwind_start, it will skip the first > regs frame and get the caller of lock function directly, or 0 if > unwind_get_return_address finds the unwinding failed. For all of FP, ORC > and guess unwinders it works. > > Fixes: 0cb91a229364 ("[PATCH] i386: Account spinlocks to the caller during profiling for !FP kernels") > Reported-by: syzbot+84fe685c02cd112a2ac3@syzkaller.appspotmail.com > Signed-off-by: Chen Zhongjin <chenzhongjin@huawei.com> > --- > arch/x86/kernel/time.c | 20 ++++++-------------- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/time.c b/arch/x86/kernel/time.c > index e42faa792c07..5e0446f49906 100644 > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/time.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/time.c > @@ -24,26 +24,18 @@ > #include <asm/timer.h> > #include <asm/hpet.h> > #include <asm/time.h> > +#include <asm/unwind.h> > > unsigned long profile_pc(struct pt_regs *regs) > { > unsigned long pc = instruction_pointer(regs); > > if (!user_mode(regs) && in_lock_functions(pc)) { > -#ifdef CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER > - return *(unsigned long *)(regs->bp + sizeof(long)); > -#else > - unsigned long *sp = (unsigned long *)regs->sp; > - /* > - * Return address is either directly at stack pointer > - * or above a saved flags. Eflags has bits 22-31 zero, > - * kernel addresses don't. > - */ > - if (sp[0] >> 22) > - return sp[0]; > - if (sp[1] >> 22) > - return sp[1]; > -#endif > + struct unwind_state state; > + > + /* unwind_start will skip the first regs frame */ > + unwind_start(&state, current, regs, NULL); > + pc = unwind_get_return_address(&state); > } > return pc; > }
On 4/2/2023 6:24 PM, Chen Zhongjin wrote: > Just ping... Or has profile code already been obsoleted? I think it would be reasonable to remove the locked functions hack since lock profiling can be handled with much better other tools these days. I wouldn't make it depend on the generic unwinder since such a low level facility is likely better off without complex dependencies that could break. -Andi
On 2023/4/4 2:29, Andi Kleen wrote: > > On 4/2/2023 6:24 PM, Chen Zhongjin wrote: >> Just ping... Or has profile code already been obsoleted? > > > I think it would be reasonable to remove the locked functions hack > since lock profiling can be handled with much better other tools these > days. > > I wouldn't make it depend on the generic unwinder since such a low > level facility is likely better off without complex dependencies that > could break. > > -Andi > > Although now the generic unwinder on x86 is quite stable... I think it's acceptable to remove the locked functions unwinding for !FP case and leave the FP part as is. I'll send a new patch for this with another bugfix. Thanks for review and best, Chen
© 2016 - 2025 Red Hat, Inc.