----- Original Message -----
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > On 04/26/2018 02:16 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Dave Anderson <anderson@redhat.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> While testing /proc/kcore as the live memory source for the crash
> > >> utility,
> > >> it fails on arm64.  The failure on arm64 occurs because only the
> > >> vmalloc/module space segments are exported in PT_LOAD segments,
> > >> and it's missing all of the PT_LOAD segments for the generic
> > >> unity-mapped regions of physical memory, as well as their associated
> > >> vmemmap sections.
> > >>
> > >> The mapping of unity-mapped RAM segments in fs/proc/kcore.c is
> > >> architecture-neutral, and after debugging it, I found this as the
> > >> problem.  For each chunk of physical memory, kcore_update_ram()
> > >> calls walk_system_ram_range(), passing kclist_add_private() as a
> > >> callback function to add the chunk to the kclist, and eventually
> > >> leading to the creation of a PT_LOAD segment.
> > >>
> > >> kclist_add_private() does some verification of the memory region,
> > >> but this one below is bogus for arm64:
> > >>
> > >>      static int
> > >>      kclist_add_private(unsigned long pfn, unsigned long nr_pages, void
> > >>      *arg)
> > >>      {
> > >>      ... [ cut ] ...
> > >>              ent->addr = (unsigned long)__va((pfn << PAGE_SHIFT));
> > >>      ... [ cut ] ...
> > >>
> > >>              /* Sanity check: Can happen in 32bit arch...maybe */
> > >>              if (ent->addr < (unsigned long) __va(0))
> > >>                      goto free_out;
> > >>
> > >> And that's because __va(0) is a bogus check for arm64.  It is checking
> > >> whether the ent->addr value is less than the lowest possible
> > >> unity-mapped
> > >> address.  But "0" should not be used as a physical address on arm64; the
> > >> lowest legitimate physical address for this __va() check would be the
> > >> arm64
> > >> PHYS_OFFSET, or memstart_addr:
> > >>
> > >> Here's the arm64 __va() and PHYS_OFFSET:
> > >>
> > >>    #define __va(x) ((void *)__phys_to_virt((phys_addr_t)(x)))
> > >>    #define __phys_to_virt(x)       ((unsigned long)((x) - PHYS_OFFSET) |
> > >>    PAGE_OFFSET)
> > >>
> > >>    extern s64                      memstart_addr;
> > >>    /* PHYS_OFFSET - the physical address of the start of memory. */
> > >>    #define PHYS_OFFSET             ({ VM_BUG_ON(memstart_addr & 1);
> > >>    memstart_addr; })
> > >>
> > >> If PHYS_OFFSET/memstart_addr is anything other than 0 (it is
> > >> 0x4000000000
> > >> on my
> > >> test system), the __va(0) calculation goes negative and creates a bogus,
> > >> very
> > >> large, virtual address.  And since the ent->addr virtual address is less
> > >> than
> > >> bogus __va(0) address, the test fails, and the memory chunk is rejected.
> > >>
> > >> Looking at the kernel sources, it seems that this would affect other
> > >> architectures as well, i.e., the ones whose __va() is not a simple
> > >> addition of the physical address with PAGE_OFFSET.
> > >>
> > >> Anyway, I don't know what the best approach for an architecture-neutral
> > >> fix would be in this case.  So I figured I'd throw it out to you guys
> > >> for
> > >> some ideas.
> > > 
> > > I'm not as familiar with this code, but I've added Ard and Laura to CC
> > > here, as this feels like something they'd be able to comment on. :)
> > > 
> > > -Kees
> > > 
> > 
> > It seems backwards that we're converting a physical address to
> > a virtual address and then validating that. I think checking against
> > pfn_valid (to ensure there is a valid memmap entry)
> > and then checking page_to_virt against virt_addr_valid to catch
> > other cases (e.g. highmem or holes in the space) seems cleaner.
> 
> Hi Laura,
> 
> Thanks a lot for looking into this -- I couldn't find a maintainer for kcore.
> 
> The patch looks good to me, as long as virt_addr_valid() will fail on 32-bit
> arches when page_to_virt() creates an invalid address when it gets passed a
> highmem-physical address.
> 
> Thanks again,
>   Dave

Laura,

Tested OK on x86_64, s390x, ppc64le and arm64.  Note that the patch below
had a cut-and-paste error -- the patch I used is attached.

Thanks,
  Dave

 
> 
> 
> > Maybe something like:
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/proc/kcore.c b/fs/proc/kcore.c
> > index d1e82761de81..e64ecb9f2720 100644
> > --- a/fs/proc/kcore.c
> > +++ b/fs/proc/kcore.c
> > @@ -209,25 +209,34 @@ kclist_add_private(unsigned long pfn, unsigned long
> > nr_pages, void *arg)
> >   {
> >   	struct list_head *head = (struct list_head *)arg;
> >   	struct kcore_list *ent;
> > +	struct page *p;
> > +
> > +	if (!pfn_valid(pfn))
> > +		return 1;
> > +
> > +	p = pfn_to_page(pfn);
> > +	if (!memmap_valid_within(pfn, p, page_zone(p)))
> > +		return 1;
> >   
> >   	ent = kmalloc(sizeof(*ent), GFP_KERNEL);
> >   	if (!ent)
> >   		return -ENOMEM;
> > -	ent->addr = (unsigned long)__va((pfn << PAGE_SHIFT));
> > +	ent->addr = (unsigned long)page_to_virt(p);
> >   	ent->size = nr_pages << PAGE_SHIFT;
> >   
> > -	/* Sanity check: Can happen in 32bit arch...maybe */
> > -	if (ent->addr < (unsigned long) __va(0))
> > +	if (!virt_addr_valid(ent->addr))
> >   		goto free_out;
> >   
> >   	/* cut not-mapped area. ....from ppc-32 code. */
> >   	if (ULONG_MAX - ent->addr < ent->size)
> >   		ent->size = ULONG_MAX - ent->addr;
> >   
> > -	/* cut when vmalloc() area is higher than direct-map area */
> > -	if (VMALLOC_START > (unsigned long)__va(0)) {
> > -		if (ent->addr > VMALLOC_START)
> > -			goto free_out;
> > +	/*
> > +	 * We've already checked virt_addr_valid so we know this address
> > +	 * is a valid pointer, therefore we can check against it to determine
> > +	 * if we need to trim
> > +	 */
> > +	if (VMALLOC_START > ent->addr) {
> >   		if (VMALLOC_START - ent->addr < ent->size)
> >   			ent->size = VMALLOC_START - ent->addr;
> >   	}
> > 
> > 
>