lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: WARNING in get_unlocked_entry
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 4:18 AM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 08:00:03AM -0700, syzbot wrote:
>> syzbot found the following crash on:
>>
>> HEAD commit: 4b42745211af Merge tag 'armsoc-soc' of git://git.kernel.or..
>> git tree: upstream
>> console output: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/log.txt?x=1187d06d400000
>> kernel config: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/.config?x=93932074d01b4a5
>> dashboard link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=4fd0c066d82852499145
>> compiler: gcc (GCC) 8.0.1 20180413 (experimental)
>>
>> Unfortunately, I don't have any reproducer for this crash yet.
>
> Hmmpf. Would have been nice if syzbot had caught this during its tests
> of the -next tree ...
>
>> IMPORTANT: if you fix the bug, please add the following tag to the commit:
>> Reported-by: syzbot+4fd0c066d82852499145@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
>>
>> EXT4-fs (sda1): Cannot specify journal on remount
>> EXT4-fs (sda1): DAX enabled. Warning: EXPERIMENTAL, use at your own risk
>> EXT4-fs (sda1): warning: refusing change of dax flag with busy inodes while
>> remounting
>> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 12870 at fs/dax.c:227 get_unlocked_entry+0x3ac/0x4d0
>> fs/dax.c:227
>> Kernel panic - not syncing: panic_on_warn set ...
>>
>> CPU: 0 PID: 12870 Comm: syz-executor3 Not tainted 4.19.0+ #87
>> Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS
>> Google 01/01/2011
>> Call Trace:
>> __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:77 [inline]
>> dump_stack+0x244/0x39d lib/dump_stack.c:113
>> panic+0x238/0x4e7 kernel/panic.c:184
>> __warn.cold.8+0x20/0x4a kernel/panic.c:536
>> report_bug+0x254/0x2d0 lib/bug.c:186
>> fixup_bug arch/x86/kernel/traps.c:178 [inline]
>> do_error_trap+0x11b/0x200 arch/x86/kernel/traps.c:271
>> do_invalid_op+0x36/0x40 arch/x86/kernel/traps.c:290
>> invalid_op+0x14/0x20 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:966
>> RIP: 0010:get_unlocked_entry+0x3ac/0x4d0 fs/dax.c:227
>> Code: e8 31 ff 83 e0 01 48 89 c6 48 89 85 10 ff ff ff e8 09 18 96 ff 48 8b
>> 85 10 ff ff ff 48 85 c0 0f 85 34 fe ff ff e8 c4 16 96 ff <0f> 0b e8 bd 16 96
>> ff 48 b8 00 00 00 00 00 fc ff df 48 03 85 f8 fe
>> RSP: 0018:ffff88018025e7b8 EFLAGS: 00010012
>> RAX: 0000000000040000 RBX: ffff88018025ead8 RCX: ffffc90008983000
>> RDX: 0000000000000341 RSI: ffffffff81e94d3c RDI: 0000000000000007
>> RBP: ffff88018025e8c8 R08: ffff88017f862280 R09: ffffed003004bd08
>> R10: ffffed003004bd08 R11: 0000000000000003 R12: dffffc0000000000
>> R13: ffffea0005e01040 R14: ffff88018025e800 R15: ffff88018025e8a0
>> grab_mapping_entry fs/dax.c:447 [inline]
>
> OK, so I'd like to know what value actually got loaded into 'entry'.
> Maybe my x86-fu is weak, but I don't understand how this register dump
> correlates with the instructions I'm seeing.
>
> Here's the C code:
>
> entry = xas_load(xas);
> if (!entry || xa_is_internal(entry) ||
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!xa_is_value(entry)) ||
> !dax_is_locked(entry))
> return entry;
>
>
> I downloaded the .config that syzbot was using and built fs/dax.o.
> Disassembling it, I get:
>
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!xa_is_value(entry)) ||
> 5e53: 31 ff xor %edi,%edi
> 5e55: 83 e0 01 and $0x1,%eax
> 5e58: 48 89 c6 mov %rax,%rsi
> 5e5b: 48 89 85 10 ff ff ff mov %rax,-0xf0(%rbp)
> 5e62: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 5e67 <get_unlocked_entry+0x397>
> 5e63: R_X86_64_PLT32 __sanitizer_cov_trace_const_cmp8
> -0x4
> 5e67: 48 8b 85 10 ff ff ff mov -0xf0(%rbp),%rax
> 5e6e: 48 85 c0 test %rax,%rax
> 5e71: 0f 85 34 fe ff ff jne 5cab <get_unlocked_entry+0x1db>
> 5e77: e8 00 00 00 00 callq 5e7c <get_unlocked_entry+0x3ac>
> 5e78: R_X86_64_PLT32 __sanitizer_cov_trace_pc-0x4
> 5e7c: 0f 0b ud2
>
> That ud2 is the WARN_ON trigger. It's at offset 0x3ac from the start of
> get_unlocked_entry() so it matches the dump.
>
> The key is 'test %rax,%rax' at 5e6e. If that passes, we jump to 5cab
> where we do xa_to_value() in order to implement dax_is_locked(). So is
> 'entry' actually 0x0000000000040000 like the dump says?
>
> That's where I get confused. The previous insn (5e67) loads rax from what
> I presume is the stack, having previously stored it there at insn 535b.
> But insn 5e51 should have reduced %rax to just 0 or 1 in the low bit of
> the register. So clearly I have my understanding of x86 insns confused.
> If someone could help me out here, I'd be grateful.

There is a call to __sanitizer_cov_trace_pc before ud2 and rax is not
a caller-preserved register. So I think we can just assume that
xa_is_value returned 0.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-31 10:47    [W:0.069 / U:0.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site