Re: Runtime failure running sh:qemu in -next due to 'sh: fix copy_from_user()'

[Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 03:47:44PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 05:39:18PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:31:41PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 01:59:38PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > > Yes, reverting 6e050503a150 fixes the problem.
> > > > 
> > > > I added a BUG() into the "if (unlikely())" below, but it doesn't catch,
> > > > and I still get the ip: OVERRUN errors. Which leaves me a bit puzzled.
> > > > 
> > > > Guenter
> > > > 
> > > > > The change in question is
> > > > >         if (__copy_size && __access_ok(__copy_from, __copy_size))
> > > > > -               return __copy_user(to, from, __copy_size);
> > > > > +               __copy_size = __copy_user(to, from, __copy_size);
> > > > > +
> > > > > +       if (unlikely(__copy_size))
> > > > > +               memset(to + (n - __copy_size), 0, __copy_size);
> > > > >  
> > > > >         return __copy_size;
> > > 
> > > So we don't even hit that memset()?  What the hell?  __copy_user() is
> > > declared as
> > > __kernel_size_t __copy_user(void *to, const void *from, __kernel_size_t n);
> > > 
> > > and __copy_size copy_from_user() is
> > > 
> > >         __kernel_size_t __copy_size = (__kernel_size_t) n;
> > > 
> > > So
> > > 	return __copy_user(to, from, __copy_size);
> > > and
> > > 	__copy_size = __copy_user(to, from, __copy_size);
> > > 	return __copy_size;
> > > ought to be doing exactly the same thing.  At that point it's starting to
> > > smell like a compiler bug somewhere in there.
> > > 
> > > Try to remove that (not triggered) if (unlikely(__copy_size)) memset(...)
> > > and see if that's enough to recover.  And it would be nice to see what
> > > all three variants (as it is, with commit reverted and with just that if
> > > removed) generate in e.g. sys_utimensat() (fs/utimes.s)
> > 
> > It would be useful to know what compiler version was used to build the
> > kernel. I wouldn't be surprised if some are buggy.
> > 
> 4.6.3 from kernel.org.

That is utterly ancient and probaby very buggy. I would recommend 5.x+
or at the very least 4.7 or 4.8.

Rich