Re: general protection fault in security_inode_getattr

[Miklos Szeredi]

On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 7:42 PM Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 2:02 PM Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 11:00 PM Ondrej Mosnacek <omosnace@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 9:37 PM syzbot
> > > <syzbot+f07cc9be8d1d226947ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > syzbot has found a reproducer for the following issue on:
> > >
> > > Looping in fsdevel and OverlayFS maintainers, as this seems to be
> > > FS/OverlayFS related...
> >
> > Hmm, the oopsing code is always something like:
> >
> > All code
> > ========
> >    0: 1b fe                sbb    %esi,%edi
> >    2: 49 8d 5e 08          lea    0x8(%r14),%rbx
> >    6: 48 89 d8              mov    %rbx,%rax
> >    9: 48 c1 e8 03          shr    $0x3,%rax
> >    d: 42 80 3c 38 00        cmpb   $0x0,(%rax,%r15,1)
> >   12: 74 08                je     0x1c
> >   14: 48 89 df              mov    %rbx,%rdi
> >   17: e8 bc b4 5b fe        callq  0xfffffffffe5bb4d8
> >   1c: 48 8b 1b              mov    (%rbx),%rbx
> >   1f: 48 83 c3 68          add    $0x68,%rbx
> >   23: 48 89 d8              mov    %rbx,%rax
> >   26: 48 c1 e8 03          shr    $0x3,%rax
> >   2a:* 42 80 3c 38 00        cmpb   $0x0,(%rax,%r15,1) <-- trapping instruction
> >   2f: 74 08                je     0x39
> >   31: 48 89 df              mov    %rbx,%rdi
> >   34: e8 9f b4 5b fe        callq  0xfffffffffe5bb4d8
> >   39: 48 8b 1b              mov    (%rbx),%rbx
> >   3c: 48 83 c3 0c          add    $0xc,%rbx
> >
> >
> > And that looks (to me) like the unrolled loop in call_int_hook().  I
> > don't see how that could be related to overlayfs, though it's
> > definitely interesting why it only triggers from
> > overlay->vfs_getattr()->security_inode_getattr()...
>
>
> >   26: 48 c1 e8 03          shr    $0x3,%rax
> >   2a:* 42 80 3c 38 00        cmpb   $0x0,(%rax,%r15,1) <-- trapping instruction
>
>
> This access is part of KASAN check. But the original address kernel
> tries to access is NULL, so it's not an issue with KASAN.
>
> The line is this:
>
> int security_inode_getattr(const struct path *path)
> {
>     if (unlikely(IS_PRIVATE(d_backing_inode(path->dentry))))
>         return 0;
>
> So it's either path is NULL, or something in d_backing_inode
> dereferences NULL path->dentry.
>
> The reproducer does involve overlayfs:
>
> mkdir(&(0x7f0000000240)='./file1\x00', 0x0)
> mkdir(&(0x7f0000000300)='./bus\x00', 0x0)
> r0 = creat(&(0x7f00000000c0)='./bus/file1\x00', 0x0)
> mkdir(&(0x7f0000000080)='./file0\x00', 0x0)
> mount$overlay(0x400002, &(0x7f0000000000)='./bus\x00',
> &(0x7f0000000100)='overlay\x00', 0x0,
> &(0x7f00000003c0)=ANY=[@ANYBLOB='upperdir=./file1,lowerdir=./bus,workdir=./file0,metacopy=on'])
> link(&(0x7f0000000200)='./bus/file1\x00', &(0x7f00000002c0)='./bus/file0\x00')
> write$RDMA_USER_CM_CMD_RESOLVE_ADDR(r0, 0x0, 0x0)
> acct(&(0x7f0000000040)='./bus/file0\x00')
>
> Though, it may be overlayfs-related, or it may be a generic bug that
> requires a tricky reproducer and the only reproducer syzbot come up
> with happened to involve overlayfs.
> But there are 4 reproducers on syzbot dashboard and all of them
> involve overlayfs and they are somewhat different. So my bet would be
> on overlayfs.

Seems there's no C reproducer, though.   Can this be reproduced
without KASAN obfuscating the oops?

Thanks,
Miklos