lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: linux-next: build failure after merge of the akpm-current tree
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 5:22 PM Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 1:53 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > After merging the akpm-current tree, today's linux-next build (arm
> > multi_v7_defconfig) failed like this:
> >
> > fs/binfmt_elf.c: In function 'load_elf_binary':
> > fs/binfmt_elf.c:1140:7: error: 'elf_interpreter' undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean 'interpreter'?
> > if (!elf_interpreter)
> > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > interpreter
>
> static int load_elf_binary(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
> {
> ...
> char * elf_interpreter = NULL;
>
> This is _absolutely_ a valid variable.

I saw a 0day report[1] as well on MIPS for this. Neither have I been
able to reproduce, though. I'm wondering if, due to the misplaced
kfree() that has existed for a while, if some kind of weird scoping is
happening.

What compiler are you using?

[1] https://lists.01.org/pipermail/kbuild-all/2019-April/060058.html

>
> >
> >
> > Caused by commit
> >
> > 3ebf0dd657ce ("fs/binfmt_elf.c: move brk out of mmap when doing direct loader exec")
> >
> > interacting with commit
> >
> > a34f642bccf1 ("fs/binfmt_elf.c: free PT_INTERP filename ASAP")
> >
> > I have applied the following patch for today.
> >
> > From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> > Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 16:48:29 +1000
> > Subject: [PATCH] fix "fs/binfmt_elf.c: move brk out of mmap when doing direct loader exec"
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> > ---
> > fs/binfmt_elf.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/binfmt_elf.c b/fs/binfmt_elf.c
> > index b3bbe6bca499..fe5668a1bbaa 100644
> > --- a/fs/binfmt_elf.c
> > +++ b/fs/binfmt_elf.c
> > @@ -1137,7 +1137,7 @@ static int load_elf_binary(struct linux_binprm *bprm)
> > * collide early with the stack growing down), and into the unused
> > * ELF_ET_DYN_BASE region.
> > */
> > - if (!elf_interpreter)
> > + if (!interpreter)
>
> No, this is very wrong and will, I think, cause all PIE binaries to fail to run.

I may be wrong: I think this will cause all static binaries to see
their brk moved very unexpectedly. All static PIE binaries will fail?





--
Kees Cook

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-18 01:01    [W:0.084 / U:0.040 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site