Re: [BUG] mmotm-081130: null pointer deref in sigkill_pending()

[Ying Han]

On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 5:18 AM, Lee Schermerhorn
<Lee.Schermerhorn@xxxxxx> wrote:
> While testing mmotm [11/29, 11/30, likely in 12/01], I came across the
> following bug after ~2 hours of heavy stress on x86_64 [same bug/trace
> hit on ia64]:
>
> BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000038
> IP: [<ffffffff8024e679>] sigkill_pending+0x19/0x30
> PGD 63be12067 PUD 7fd0cc067 PMD 0
> Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP DEBUG_PAGEALLOC
> last sysfs file: /sys/block/hda/removable
> CPU 7
> Modules linked in: sunrpc ipv6 dm_mirror dm_region_hash dm_log dm_mod rfkill input_polldev pci_slot parport_pc lp parport ide_cd_mod cdrom serio_raw hpilo hpwdt button amd_rng pata_acpi i2c_amd756 libata i2c_core pcspkr mptspi mptscsih sym53c8xx scsi_transport_spi sd_mod scsi_mod mptbase ext3 jbd ehci_hcd ohci_hcd uhci_hcd
> Pid: 19530, comm: ps Not tainted 2.6.28-rc6-mmotm-081130-2235 #10
> RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff8024e679>]  [<ffffffff8024e679>] sigkill_pending+0x19/0x30
> RSP: 0018:ffff8806a64efd38  EFLAGS: 00010246
> RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 000000000000000e RCX: ffff8805fc96fb00
> RDX: ffff8806a64efe38 RSI: 00007fff62423000 RDI: ffff88020c87abe0
> RBP: ffff8806a64efd38 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffff8806a64efe30
> R10: 0000000000000002 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: ffff8805fc96fb00
> R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 0000000000000010 R15: ffff8806a64efe30
> FS:  00007f32d4ac46f0(0000) GS:ffff8807fed46d80(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 000000008005003b
> CR2: 0000000000000038 CR3: 0000000784571000 CR4: 00000000000006e0
> DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000ffff0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> Process ps (pid: 19530, threadinfo ffff8806a64ee000, task ffff88062cf6d7c0)
> Stack:
>  ffff8806a64efdb8 ffffffff80298986 0000000000000001 ffff88062cf6d7c0
>  ffff8803ad100680 ffff88020c87abe0 0000000000000000 ffff8806a64efe38
>  ffff8806a64efe30 00000001804f0765 00007fff624236be 0000000000000000
> Call Trace:
>  [<ffffffff80298986>] __get_user_pages+0x166/0x440
>  [<ffffffff80298c92>] get_user_pages+0x32/0x40
>  [<ffffffff80298dab>] access_process_vm+0x10b/0x1e0
>  [<ffffffff8030bd60>] proc_pid_cmdline+0x90/0x120
>  [<ffffffff802ae568>] ? alloc_pages_current+0xa8/0x100
>  [<ffffffff8030de5b>] proc_info_read+0x9b/0xe0
>  [<ffffffff802c0ba4>] vfs_read+0xc4/0x160
>  [<ffffffff802c1000>] sys_read+0x50/0x90
>  [<ffffffff8020c3fb>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> Code: e8 08 83 e0 01 c3 66 0f 1f 44 00 00 66 0f 1f 44 00 00 f6 87 49 05 00 00 01 55 b8 01 00 00 00 48 89 e5 75 12 48 8b 87 10 05 00 00 <48> 8b 40 38 48 c1 e8 08 83 e0 01 c9 c3 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00
> RIP  [<ffffffff8024e679>] sigkill_pending+0x19/0x30
>  RSP <ffff8806a64efd38>
> CR2: 0000000000000038
> ---[ end trace 80efa2c8bcce4fdc ]---
>
> Ad hoc instrumentation showed that this is likely the result of the
> "make-get_user_pages-interruptible" patch in mmotm.  The test workload
> includes a number of tasks that repeatedly run a list of miscellaneous
> programs, including ps(1).  Occasionally, ps will catch a task with a
> NULL "tsk->signal" [exiting?], resulting in a null pointer deref in
> sigkill_pending() called from __get_user_pages().
>
> Before the aforementioned patch, sigkill_pending() was only called from
> ptrace_stop() for tsk == current.  The comment block on ptrace_stop()
> says:  "This must be called with current->sighand->siglock held."  So,
> it doesn't look safe to call sigkill_pending() from
> __get_user_pages()--especially on a task != current--without similar
> locking.

>
> I'm not sure what the correct fix should be here.
I made a fix for the patch as Oleg suggested which replace the
sigkill_pending() as fatal_signal_pending().
Andrew deleted the original patch from mm tree this morning and i am
about the post the new patch with
the fix.
>
> Related:  the patch and it's update add the following to
> __get_user_pages():
>
>        if (unlikely(sigkill_pending(current) ||
>             sigkill_pending(tsk)))
>                return i ? i : -ERESTARTSYS;
>
> As a minimum, I don't think we want to call the second sigkill_pending()
> unless tsk != current.
In most cases, (current == tsk) in get_user_pages. However in some
situation current is calling get_user_pages on behalf of tsk and we
want to interrupt the allocation in this case as well.
I might change it something like this:

>        if (unlikely(sigkill_pending(current) ||
>             ((current != tsk) && sigkill_pending(tsk))))
>                return i ? i : -ERESTARTSYS;
>

> Lee
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/