Re: [PATCH] UML: add support for KASAN under x86_64

[David Gow]

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 1:41 AM Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2020-03-30 at 10:38 +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 9:44 AM Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2020-03-20 at 16:18 +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > > > > Wait ... Now you say 0x7fbfffc000, but that is almost fine? I think you
> > > > > confused the values - because I see, on userspace, the following:
> > > >
> > > > Oh, sorry, I copy-pasted wrong number. I meant 0x7fff8000.
> > >
> > > Right, ok.
> > >
> > > > Then I would expect 0x1000 0000 0000 to work, but you say it doesn't...
> > >
> > > So it just occurred to me - as I was mentioning this whole thing to
> > > Richard - that there's probably somewhere some check about whether some
> > > space is userspace or not.
> > >
> > > I'm beginning to think that we shouldn't just map this outside of the
> > > kernel memory system, but properly treat it as part of the memory that's
> > > inside. And also use KASAN_VMALLOC.
> > >
> > > We can probably still have it at 0x7fff8000, just need to make sure we
> > > actually map it? I tried with vm_area_add_early() but it didn't really
> > > work once you have vmalloc() stuff...
> >
> > But we do mmap it, no? See kasan_init() -> kasan_map_memory() -> mmap.
>
> Of course. But I meant inside the UML PTE system. We end up *unmapping*
> it when loading modules, because it overlaps vmalloc space, and then we
> vfree() something again, and unmap it ... because of the overlap.
>
> And if it's *not* in the vmalloc area, then the kernel doesn't consider
> it valid, and we seem to often just fault when trying to determine
> whether it's valid kernel memory or not ... Though I'm not really sure I
> understand the failure part of this case well yet.
>
> johannes
>

I spent a little time playing around with this, and was able to get
mac80211 loading if I force-enabled CONFIG_KASAN_VMALLOC (alongside
bumping up the shadow memory address).
The test-bpf module was still failing, though â which may or may not
have been related to how bpf uses vmalloc().

Simply adding code to unpoison the region on vmalloc() doesn't seem to
do anything, which lends credence to the idea that the memory is
actually being unmapped or is not considered kernel memory.

I do like the idea of trying to push the shadow memory allocation
through UML's PTE code, but confess to not understanding it
particularly well. I imagine it'd require pushing the KASAN
initialisation back until after init_physmem, and having the shadow
memory be backed by the physmem file? Unless there's a clever way of
allocating the shadow memory early, and then hooking it into the page
tables/etc when those are initialised (akin to how on x86 there's a
separate early shadow memory stage while things are still being set
up, maybe?)

Food for thought, perhaps.

-- David

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature