Re: [lkp-robot] [include/linux/string.h] 6974f0c455: kernel_BUG_at_lib/string.c

[Masami Hiramatsu]

On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 21:04:25 -0700
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hmm. I wonder why the kernel test robot ends up having that annoying
> line doubling for the dmesg.
> 
> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 6:42 PM, kernel test robot
> <xiaolong.ye@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > FYI, we noticed the following commit:
> >
> > commit: 6974f0c4555e285ab217cee58b6e874f776ff409 ("include/linux/string.h: add the option of fortified string.h functions")
> >
> > caused below changes (please refer to attached dmesg/kmsg for entire log/backtrace):
> 
> It does strike me that the fortify_panic() code once again makes life
> unnecessarily hard for everybody by using "BUG()"
> 
> What the hell is wrong with people? I feel; like I have to say this
> multiple times for every single merge window, and sometimes in
> between.
> 
> BUG() and BUG_ON() are not acceptable debugging things. They kill the
> machine. They make for bad debugging.
> 
> > [    8.134860] kernel BUG at lib/string.c:985!
> 
> This is basically an entirely useless piece of completely
> information-less garbage.
> 
> It would have been much nicer if all the fortify_panic() calls had
> instead used WARN_ONCE() with helpful pointers to what is going on.
> 
> As it is, the full dmesg does show that
> 
>     detected buffer overflow in memcpy
> 
> but since it was printed out separately, if comes before the "-- cut
> here --" part and didn't get reported in the summary.
> 
> > [    8.134886]  arch_prepare_optimized_kprobe+0xd5/0x171
> 
> It's apparently this:
> 
>         /* Copy arch-dep-instance from template */
>         memcpy(buf, &optprobe_template_entry, TMPL_END_IDX);
> 
> and looking at the code generation, the conditional in the fortify case is
> 
> # ./include/linux/string.h:307:         if (p_size < size || q_size < size)
>         cmpq    $1, %r13        #, _14
>         jbe     .L109   #,
> 
> but it's hard to tell whether that is p_size or q_size. One of them
> must be ~0ul (or maybe both are 1) for it to have simplified to that
> single conditional.
> 
> So the fortify_string code has decided that only a single-byte (or
> empty) memcpy is ok.
> 
> And that, in turn, seems to be because we're copying from
> optprobe_template_entry, which is declared as
> 
>     extern __visible kprobe_opcode_t optprobe_template_entry;
> 
> so the fortify code decides it's a single character.
> 
> Does just changing all those things to be declared as arrays fix things?
> 

BTW, I've confirmed this works.

Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>

Thank you!

> IOW, a patch something like this white-space damaged mess:
> 
>     diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kprobes.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kprobes.h
>     index 34b984c60790..6cf65437b5e5 100644
>     --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kprobes.h
>     +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kprobes.h
>     @@ -52,10 +52,10 @@ typedef u8 kprobe_opcode_t;
>      #define flush_insn_slot(p) do { } while (0)
> 
>      /* optinsn template addresses */
>     -extern __visible kprobe_opcode_t optprobe_template_entry;
>     -extern __visible kprobe_opcode_t optprobe_template_val;
>     -extern __visible kprobe_opcode_t optprobe_template_call;
>     -extern __visible kprobe_opcode_t optprobe_template_end;
>     +extern __visible kprobe_opcode_t optprobe_template_entry[];
>     +extern __visible kprobe_opcode_t optprobe_template_val[];
>     +extern __visible kprobe_opcode_t optprobe_template_call[];
>     +extern __visible kprobe_opcode_t optprobe_template_end[];
>      #define MAX_OPTIMIZED_LENGTH (MAX_INSN_SIZE + RELATIVE_ADDR_SIZE)
>      #define MAX_OPTINSN_SIZE                           \
>         (((unsigned long)&optprobe_template_end -       \
> 
> Hmm?
> 
>                  Linus


-- 
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>