public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To: Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>
Cc: Coiby Xu <coxu@redhat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	fuqiang wang <fuqiang.wang@easystack.cn>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>, Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>,
	kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] x86/kexec: fix potential cmem->ranges out of bounds
Date: Mon, 19 May 2025 09:22:30 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aCksAsgAw1jsGBL9@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202505161616.F4C1BCCF6A@keescook>

On 05/16/25 at 04:20pm, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2025 at 11:35:12AM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
> > On 05/11/25 at 10:19am, Coiby Xu wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 09, 2025 at 06:35:18PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 9 May 2025 17:58:01 +0800 Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > The bad commit was introduced in 2021 but only recent gcc-15 supports
> > > > > > __counted_by. That's why we don't see this UBSAN warning until this
> > > > > > year. And although this UBSAN warning is scary enough, fortunately it
> > > > > > doesn't cause a real problem.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Baoquan, please re-review this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A -stable backport is clearly required.  A Fixes: would be nice, but I
> > > > > > > assume this goes back a long time so it isn't worth spending a lot of
> > > > > > > time working out when this was introduced.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So I believe the correct fix should be as follows,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks for testing and investigation into these. Could you arrange this
> > > > > into formal patches based on your testing and analysis?
> > > > > 
> > > > > It would be great if you can include Fuqiang's patch since it has
> > > > > conflict with your LUKS patch. This can facilitate patch merging for
> > > > > Andrew. Thanks in advance.
> > > > 
> > > > Yes please, I'm a bit lost here.
> > > > x86-kexec-fix-potential-cmem-ranges-out-of-bounds.patch is not
> > > > presently in mm.git and I'd appreciate clarity on how to resolve the
> > > > conflicts which a new version of
> > > > x86-kexec-fix-potential-cmem-ranges-out-of-bounds.patch will produce.
> > > 
> > > I'll resolve any conflict between these patches. Before that, I'm not sure
> > > if a separate patch to fix the UBSAN warnings alone is needed to Cc
> > > stable@vger.kernel.org because 1) the UBSAN warnings don't mean there is a
> > > real problem;
> > > 2) both Fuqiang's patch and my kdump LUKS support patches fix the UBSAN
> > > warnings as a by-product.
> > > 
> > > It seems the answer largely depends on if the stable tree or longterm
> > > trees need it. Currently, only longterm tree 6.12.28 and the stable tree
> > > 6.14.6 have the UBSAN warnings if they are compiled with gcc-15 or
> > > clang-18. Any advice will be appreciated! Thanks!
> > 
> > I personally think UBSAN warning fix is not necessary for stable kernel.
> > 
> > Hi Kees, Andrew,
> > 
> > Could you help answer Coiby's question about whether we need post a
> > standalone patch to fix the UBSAN warning fix so that it can be back
> > ported to stable kernel?
> 
> I went back through the thread and the referenced threads and I can't
> find any details on the USBAN splat. Can that please get reproduced in a
> commit log? That would help understand if it's a false positive or not.


The original patch is trying to fix a potential issue in which a memory
range is split, while the sub-range split out is always on top of the
entire memory range, hence no risk.

Later, we encountered a UBSAN warning around the above memory range
splitting code several times. We found this patch can mute the warning.

Please see below UBSAN splat trace report from Coiby:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/4de3c2onosr7negqnfhekm4cpbklzmsimgdfv33c52dktqpza5@z5pb34ghz4at/T/#u

Later, Coiby got the root cause from investigation, please see:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/2754f4evjfumjqome63bc3inqb7ozepemejn2lcl57ryio2t6k@35l3tnn73gei/T/#u

> 
> Also, referencing the commit would be good. I assume this is discussing
> commit 15fcedd43a08 ("kexec: Annotate struct crash_mem with __counted_by")?

Right.

> 
> > In the case exposed during reviewing this patch, the code UBSAN warned
> > is not risky.
> 
> Given that this makes things work correctly with newer compilers, I
> would say it should be backported to whatever -stable kernels have the
> "counted_by" annotation. (Hence the request to add a "Fixes" line so
> that it will happen automatically.)

Got it, then Coiby can post a standalone patch to fix commit 15fcedd43a08
("kexec: Annotate struct crash_mem with __counted_by") and CC stable, then
post a new version of this patch on top.

Thanks a lot for confirming.


  reply	other threads:[~2025-05-19  1:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-01-08 13:06 [PATCH v4] x86/kexec: fix potential cmem->ranges out of bounds fuqiang wang
2024-01-09  3:46 ` Baoquan He
2025-05-08  4:25   ` Coiby Xu
2025-05-08  5:59     ` Andrew Morton
2025-05-08  7:12       ` Baoquan He
2025-05-08  7:33       ` Baoquan He
2025-05-09  4:04       ` Coiby Xu
2025-05-09  9:58         ` Baoquan He
2025-05-10  1:35           ` Andrew Morton
2025-05-11  2:19             ` Coiby Xu
2025-05-16  3:35               ` Baoquan He
2025-05-16 23:20                 ` Kees Cook
2025-05-19  1:22                   ` Baoquan He [this message]
2025-05-19 14:19                     ` Kees Cook
2025-05-19 14:34                       ` Baoquan He
2025-05-20  9:13                         ` Coiby Xu
2025-05-29  2:18                           ` Coiby Xu
2025-05-20  9:50                     ` Coiby Xu
2025-05-11  1:52           ` Coiby Xu
2025-05-08  6:10 ` Andrew Morton
2025-05-08  7:38 ` [PATCH v5] " Baoquan He
2025-05-08  7:52   ` Baoquan He

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=aCksAsgAw1jsGBL9@MiWiFi-R3L-srv \
    --to=bhe@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=coxu@redhat.com \
    --cc=dyoung@redhat.com \
    --cc=fuqiang.wang@easystack.cn \
    --cc=kees@kernel.org \
    --cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox