LinuxLists.cc - [syzbot] [serial?] KASAN: stack-out-of-bounds Read in sched_show

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: [PATCH] riscv: fix out of bounds in walk_stackframe

Increase the check on the frame after assigning its value. This is to prevent
frame access from crossing boundaries.

Reported-and-tested-by: [email protected]
Signed-off-by: Edward AD <[email protected]>
---
arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c
index 64a9c093aef9..53bd18672329 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c
+++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c
@@ -54,6 +54,8 @@ void notrace walk_stackframe(struct task_struct *task, struct pt_regs *regs,
break;
/* Unwind stack frame */
frame = (struct stackframe *)fp - 1;
+ if (!virt_addr_valid(frame))
+ break;
sp = fp;
if (regs && (regs->epc == pc) && (frame->fp & 0x7)) {
fp = frame->ra;
--
2.25.1

2023-09-26 11:20:29

by Conor Dooley

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: fix out of bounds in walk_stackframe

Hey Edward,

Where did you come up with the CC list for this patch from? Please run
get_maintainer.pl on your patches and CC the output. You've not CCed any
relevant developers on this mail :(

On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 06:59:50PM +0800, Edward AD wrote:
> Increase the check on the frame after assigning its value. This is to prevent
> frame access from crossing boundaries.
>
> Reported-and-tested-by: [email protected]

Please also add a Fixes: tag & a Closes: tag with a link to the report
when you do so.

Thanks,
Conor.

> Signed-off-by: Edward AD <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c
> index 64a9c093aef9..53bd18672329 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c
> @@ -54,6 +54,8 @@ void notrace walk_stackframe(struct task_struct *task, struct pt_regs *regs,
> break;
> /* Unwind stack frame */
> frame = (struct stackframe *)fp - 1;
> + if (!virt_addr_valid(frame))
> + break;
> sp = fp;
> if (regs && (regs->epc == pc) && (frame->fp & 0x7)) {
> fp = frame->ra;
> --
> 2.25.1
>

Attachments:

(No filename) (1.25 kB)
signature.asc (235.00 B)
Download all attachments

2023-09-26 14:14:36

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: [PATCH] riscv: fix out of bounds in walk_stackframe

Increase the check on the frame after assigning its value. This is to prevent
frame access from crossing boundaries.

Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
Fixes: 5d8544e2d007 ("RISC-V: Generic library routines and assembly")
Reported-and-tested-by: [email protected]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/T/
Signed-off-by: Edward AD <[email protected]>
---
arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c
index 64a9c093aef9..53bd18672329 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c
+++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c
@@ -54,6 +54,8 @@ void notrace walk_stackframe(struct task_struct *task, struct pt_regs *regs,
break;
/* Unwind stack frame */
frame = (struct stackframe *)fp - 1;
+ if (!virt_addr_valid(frame))
+ break;
sp = fp;
if (regs && (regs->epc == pc) && (frame->fp & 0x7)) {
fp = frame->ra;
--
2.25.1

2023-09-26 15:16:14

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: fix out of bounds in walk_stackframe

On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 07:43:44PM +0800, Edward AD wrote:
> Increase the check on the frame after assigning its value. This is to prevent
> frame access from crossing boundaries.
>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> Fixes: 5d8544e2d007 ("RISC-V: Generic library routines and assembly")
> Reported-and-tested-by: [email protected]
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/T/
> Signed-off-by: Edward AD <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c
> index 64a9c093aef9..53bd18672329 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c
> @@ -54,6 +54,8 @@ void notrace walk_stackframe(struct task_struct *task, struct pt_regs *regs,
> break;
> /* Unwind stack frame */
> frame = (struct stackframe *)fp - 1;
> + if (!virt_addr_valid(frame))
> + break;
> sp = fp;
> if (regs && (regs->epc == pc) && (frame->fp & 0x7)) {
> fp = frame->ra;
> --
> 2.25.1
>

Hi,

This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. You have sent him
a patch that has triggered this response. He used to manually respond
to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
created. Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
kernel tree.

You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
as indicated below:

- You have marked a patch with a "Fixes:" tag for a commit that is in an
older released kernel, yet you do not have a cc: stable line in the
signed-off-by area at all, which means that the patch will not be
applied to any older kernel releases. To properly fix this, please
follow the documented rules in the
Documetnation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst file for how to resolve
this.

If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
from other developers.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot

2023-09-28 09:13:17

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: fix out of bounds in walk_stackframe

Hi Edward,

On 26/09/2023 13:43, Edward AD wrote:
> Increase the check on the frame after assigning its value. This is to prevent
> frame access from crossing boundaries.
>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> Fixes: 5d8544e2d007 ("RISC-V: Generic library routines and assembly")
> Reported-and-tested-by: [email protected]
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/T/
> Signed-off-by: Edward AD <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c
> index 64a9c093aef9..53bd18672329 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c
> @@ -54,6 +54,8 @@ void notrace walk_stackframe(struct task_struct *task, struct pt_regs *regs,
> break;
> /* Unwind stack frame */
> frame = (struct stackframe *)fp - 1;
> + if (!virt_addr_valid(frame))
> + break;
> sp = fp;
> if (regs && (regs->epc == pc) && (frame->fp & 0x7)) {
> fp = frame->ra;

virt_addr_valid() works on kernel linear addresses, not on vmalloc
addresses, which is the case here (0xff20000006d37c38 belongs to the
vmalloc region: see
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/Documentation/riscv/vm-layout.rst#L125).
So this fix can't work.

I'm a bit surprised though of this out-of-bounds access since
CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER is enabled, so there may be a real issue here (the
console output is horrible, lots of backtraces, which is weird), so it
may be worth digging into that.

Thanks,

Alex

2023-09-28 09:45:53

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: fix out of bounds in walk_stackframe

Oh and BTW, any idea why linux-riscv was not in CC for the initial report?

On 28/09/2023 10:02, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> Hi Edward,
>
> On 26/09/2023 13:43, Edward AD wrote:
>> Increase the check on the frame after assigning its value. This is to
>> prevent
>> frame access from crossing boundaries.
>>
>> Closes:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
>> Fixes: 5d8544e2d007 ("RISC-V: Generic library routines and assembly")
>> Reported-and-tested-by:
>> [email protected]
>> Link:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/T/
>> Signed-off-by: Edward AD <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c | 2 ++
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c
>> b/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c
>> index 64a9c093aef9..53bd18672329 100644
>> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c
>> @@ -54,6 +54,8 @@ void notrace walk_stackframe(struct task_struct
>> *task, struct pt_regs *regs,
>>               break;
>>           /* Unwind stack frame */
>>           frame = (struct stackframe *)fp - 1;
>> +        if (!virt_addr_valid(frame))
>> +            break;
>>           sp = fp;
>>           if (regs && (regs->epc == pc) && (frame->fp & 0x7)) {
>>               fp = frame->ra;
>
>
> virt_addr_valid() works on kernel linear addresses, not on vmalloc
> addresses, which is the case here (0xff20000006d37c38 belongs to the
> vmalloc region: see
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/Documentation/riscv/vm-layout.rst#L125).
> So this fix can't work.
>
> I'm a bit surprised though of this out-of-bounds access since
> CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER is enabled, so there may be a real issue here
> (the console output is horrible, lots of backtraces, which is weird),
> so it may be worth digging into that.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-riscv mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

2023-09-29 05:47:05

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: [PATCH] riscv: fix out of bounds in walk_stackframe

Add vmalloc and kernel addresses check to prevent invalid access.

Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
Fixes: 5d8544e2d007 ("RISC-V: Generic library routines and assembly")
Reported-and-test-by: [email protected]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/T/
Signed-off-by: Edward AD <[email protected]>
---
arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c
index 64a9c093aef9..031a4a35c1d0 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c
+++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c
@@ -54,6 +54,9 @@ void notrace walk_stackframe(struct task_struct *task, struct pt_regs *regs,
break;
/* Unwind stack frame */
frame = (struct stackframe *)fp - 1;
+ if ((is_vmalloc_addr(frame) && !pfn_valid(page_to_pfn(vmalloc_to_page(frame)))) ||
+ !virt_addr_valid(frame))
+ break;
sp = fp;
if (regs && (regs->epc == pc) && (frame->fp & 0x7)) {
fp = frame->ra;
--
2.25.1

2023-09-29 07:23:01

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: fix out of bounds in walk_stackframe

2023-09-29 07:25:13

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: fix out of bounds in walk_stackframe

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 07:12:40AM +0800, Edward AD wrote:
> Add vmalloc and kernel addresses check to prevent invalid access.
>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> Fixes: 5d8544e2d007 ("RISC-V: Generic library routines and assembly")
> Reported-and-test-by: [email protected]
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/T/
> Signed-off-by: Edward AD <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c
> index 64a9c093aef9..031a4a35c1d0 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c
> @@ -54,6 +54,9 @@ void notrace walk_stackframe(struct task_struct *task, struct pt_regs *regs,
> break;
> /* Unwind stack frame */
> frame = (struct stackframe *)fp - 1;
> + if ((is_vmalloc_addr(frame) && !pfn_valid(page_to_pfn(vmalloc_to_page(frame)))) ||
> + !virt_addr_valid(frame))
> + break;
> sp = fp;
> if (regs && (regs->epc == pc) && (frame->fp & 0x7)) {
> fp = frame->ra;
> --
> 2.25.1
>

Hi,

This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. You have sent him
a patch that has triggered this response. He used to manually respond
to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
created. Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
kernel tree.

You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
as indicated below:

- Your patch contains warnings and/or errors noticed by the
scripts/checkpatch.pl tool.

- You have marked a patch with a "Fixes:" tag for a commit that is in an
older released kernel, yet you do not have a cc: stable line in the
signed-off-by area at all, which means that the patch will not be
applied to any older kernel releases. To properly fix this, please
follow the documented rules in the
Documetnation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst file for how to resolve
this.

If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
from other developers.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot

2023-09-29 15:25:30

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH] riscv: fix out of bounds in walk_stackframe

Hi Edward,

On Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 1:12 AM Edward AD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Add vmalloc and kernel addresses check to prevent invalid access.
>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> Fixes: 5d8544e2d007 ("RISC-V: Generic library routines and assembly")
> Reported-and-test-by: [email protected]
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/T/
> Signed-off-by: Edward AD <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c
> index 64a9c093aef9..031a4a35c1d0 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c
> @@ -54,6 +54,9 @@ void notrace walk_stackframe(struct task_struct *task, struct pt_regs *regs,
> break;
> /* Unwind stack frame */
> frame = (struct stackframe *)fp - 1;
> + if ((is_vmalloc_addr(frame) && !pfn_valid(page_to_pfn(vmalloc_to_page(frame)))) ||
> + !virt_addr_valid(frame))
> + break;
> sp = fp;
> if (regs && (regs->epc == pc) && (frame->fp & 0x7)) {
> fp = frame->ra;
> --
> 2.25.1
>

I'm still not convinced this will fix the kasan out-of-bounds
accesses, the page can be valid but the read can happen at an offset
not initialized and trigger such errors right? I still think there is
something weird about the stack frame, as to me this should not happen
(but admittedly I don't know much about that).

2023-09-30 00:32:38

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: [PATCH] Test for riscv fixes

Hi Alexandre,

On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 10:25:59 +0200 Alexandre Ghiti <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm still not convinced this will fix the kasan out-of-bounds
> accesses, the page can be valid but the read can happen at an offset
> not initialized and trigger such errors right? I still think there is
> something weird about the stack frame, as to me this should not happen
> (but admittedly I don't know much about that).
The added check can confirm that the physical page is invalid (whether it is a
vmalloc allocated page or a slab allocated page), and exit the for loop when it is invalid.

Perhaps we can trust the test results of syzbot.

Thanks,
edward

2023-09-30 03:26:29

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: [PATCH] Test for riscv fixes

On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 08:04:57 +0200 Greg KH wrote:
> Where are you getting your odd cc: list from? This has nothing to do
> with serial drivers...
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/raw

Thanks,
edward

2023-09-30 08:26:33

by Conor Dooley

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH] Test for riscv fixes

On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 08:13:56AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 07:05:35AM +0800, Edward AD wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 08:04:57 +0200 Greg KH wrote:
> > > Where are you getting your odd cc: list from? This has nothing to do
> > > with serial drivers...
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/raw
>
> I do not understand this answer.

AIUI, the original report from syzbot "blamed" the serial maintainers.
Not too sure how it determined that though, given the contents.

Attachments:

(No filename) (538.00 B)
signature.asc (235.00 B)
Download all attachments

2023-09-30 08:33:29

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH] Test for riscv fixes

On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 07:05:35AM +0800, Edward AD wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 08:04:57 +0200 Greg KH wrote:
> > Where are you getting your odd cc: list from? This has nothing to do
> > with serial drivers...
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/raw

I do not understand this answer.

2023-10-02 07:17:08

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH] Test for riscv fixes

Hi Edward,

On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 1:06 AM Edward AD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Alexandre,
>
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 10:25:59 +0200 Alexandre Ghiti <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I'm still not convinced this will fix the kasan out-of-bounds
> > accesses, the page can be valid but the read can happen at an offset
> > not initialized and trigger such errors right? I still think there is
> > something weird about the stack frame, as to me this should not happen
> > (but admittedly I don't know much about that).
> The added check can confirm that the physical page is invalid (whether it is a
> vmalloc allocated page or a slab allocated page), and exit the for loop when it is invalid.

Yes, but to me this is not what happens in the bug report you link:

| BUG: KASAN: out-of-bounds in walk_stackframe+0x130/0x2f2
arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c:59
| Read of size 8 at addr ff20000006d37c38 by task swapper/1/0

So the read at address ff20000006d37c38 is not "normal" according to
KASAN (you can see there is no trap, meaning the physical mapping
exists).

| The buggy address belongs to the virtual mapping at
| [ff20000006d30000, ff20000006d39000) created by:
| kernel_clone+0x118/0x896 kernel/fork.c:2909

The virtual address is legitimate since the vma exists ^

| The buggy address belongs to the physical page:
| page:ff1c00000250dbc0 refcount:1 mapcount:0 mapping:0000000000000000
index:0x0 pfn:0x9436f

And the physical page also exists ^

So I insist, checking that a physical mapping exists to exit the loop
is not enough, to me, the error here is that the backtrace goes "too
far" at an address where nothing was written before and then KASAN
complains about that, again, we don't take any page fault here so it's
not a problem of existing physical mapping.

>
> Perhaps we can trust the test results of syzbot.
>
> Thanks,
> edward

2023-10-02 13:31:54

by Aleksandr Nogikh

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH] Test for riscv fixes

On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 10:24 AM Conor Dooley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 08:13:56AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 07:05:35AM +0800, Edward AD wrote:
> > > On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 08:04:57 +0200 Greg KH wrote:
> > > > Where are you getting your odd cc: list from? This has nothing to do
> > > > with serial drivers...
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/raw
> >
> > I do not understand this answer.
>
> AIUI, the original report from syzbot "blamed" the serial maintainers.
> Not too sure how it determined that though, given the contents.
>

blame is too strong a word for that auto-inferred hint :)

Yes, the actual problem was in a totally different place, but FWIW
here's how it happened:

Statistically, stacktrace.c and a number of other generic locations
are rather unlikely to actually contain the bug (they can, but the
chances are that it's deeper in the call stack), so syzbot, while
traversing the stack trace, skipped all frames until

[<ffffffff80fa0c7e>] fn_show_state+0x1a/0x22 drivers/tty/vt/keyboard.c:614
[<ffffffff80fa1152>] k_spec drivers/tty/vt/keyboard.c:667 [inline]
[<ffffffff80fa1152>] k_spec+0xce/0x102 drivers/tty/vt/keyboard.c:656
[<ffffffff80fa306c>] kbd_keycode drivers/tty/vt/keyboard.c:1524 [inline]
[<ffffffff80fa306c>] kbd_event+0x5fa/0xa5e drivers/tty/vt/keyboard.c:1543

Per MAINTAINERS, these locations belonged to "TTY LAYER AND SERIAL
DRIVERS". Therefore serial in Cc.

The automation actually attributes a lot of reports correctly, but,
unfortunately, there are also tricky cases like this.

--
Aleksandr

2023-10-02 13:50:03

by Mark Rutland

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH] Test for riscv fixes

On Mon, Oct 02, 2023 at 09:13:52AM +0200, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> Hi Edward,
>
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 1:06 AM Edward AD <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alexandre,
> >
> > On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 10:25:59 +0200 Alexandre Ghiti <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > I'm still not convinced this will fix the kasan out-of-bounds
> > > accesses, the page can be valid but the read can happen at an offset
> > > not initialized and trigger such errors right? I still think there is
> > > something weird about the stack frame, as to me this should not happen
> > > (but admittedly I don't know much about that).
> > The added check can confirm that the physical page is invalid (whether it is a
> > vmalloc allocated page or a slab allocated page), and exit the for loop when it is invalid.
>
> Yes, but to me this is not what happens in the bug report you link:
>
> | BUG: KASAN: out-of-bounds in walk_stackframe+0x130/0x2f2
> arch/riscv/kernel/stacktrace.c:59
> | Read of size 8 at addr ff20000006d37c38 by task swapper/1/0
>
> So the read at address ff20000006d37c38 is not "normal" according to
> KASAN (you can see there is no trap, meaning the physical mapping
> exists).
>
> | The buggy address belongs to the virtual mapping at
> | [ff20000006d30000, ff20000006d39000) created by:
> | kernel_clone+0x118/0x896 kernel/fork.c:2909
>
> The virtual address is legitimate since the vma exists ^
>
> | The buggy address belongs to the physical page:
> | page:ff1c00000250dbc0 refcount:1 mapcount:0 mapping:0000000000000000
> index:0x0 pfn:0x9436f
>
> And the physical page also exists ^
>
> So I insist, checking that a physical mapping exists to exit the loop
> is not enough, to me, the error here is that the backtrace goes "too
> far" at an address where nothing was written before and then KASAN
> complains about that, again, we don't take any page fault here so it's
> not a problem of existing physical mapping.

Yep!

I believe what's happening here is one task unwinding another (starting from
whatever gets saved in switch_to()), and there's nothing that prevents that
other task from running concurrently and modifying/poisoning its stack. In
general trying to unwind a remote stack is racy and broken, but we're stuck
with a few bits of the kernel tryingto do that occasionally and so the arch
code needs to handle that without blowing up.

For KASAN specifically you'll need to access the stack with unchecked accesses
(e.g. using READ_ONCE_NOCHECK() to read the struct stackframe), and you'll
probably want to add some explicit checks that pointers are within stack bounds
since concurrent modification (or corruption) could result in entirely bogus
pointers.

I *think* that we do the right thing on arm64, so you might want to take a look
at arm64's unwinder in arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c,
arch/arm64/include/asm/stacktrace.h, and
arch/arm64/include/asm/stacktrace/common.h.

Mark.

2023-10-06 11:38:30