[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Fix boot crash on xsm/flask enabled builds when no policy module is present



On 08/26/2013 03:00 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 26.08.13 at 14:24, Tomasz Wroblewski<tomasz.wroblewski@xxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
On 08/26/2013 01:12 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 26.08.13 at 12:03, Tomasz Wroblewski<tomasz.wroblewski@xxxxxxxxxx>   wrote:
Xen crashes on boot of xsm/flask enabled builds, if policy module is not
specified.
This seems to have worked on 4.1 at least.
Looking at the code (4.1.5) I can't see what would prevent the
same NULL pointer deref. Care to explain?
The crash doesn't happen at the NULL pointer dereference site though,
Then does it deref the NULL pointer, or does it not? If it does and
merely doesn't crash because something happens to be mapped
there, that's still a bug.

but a bit later, when xen tries to flush tlbs for first time I believe,
which happens during page allocation for the initial domain structure. I
traced it to the following ASSERT in smp.c (so yes I should add this
particular crash likely is limited to debug builds then)

void flush_area_mask(const cpumask_t *mask, const void *va, unsigned int
flags)
{
      ASSERT(local_irq_is_enabled());
      ...

The actual crash message is unhelpful since it's basically only

...
(XEN) Using scheduler: SMP Credit Scheduler (credit)
(XEN) Unknown interrupt (cr2=0000000000000000)


Either removing the assert (which is obviously bad), or checking for the
The assertion is in no way bad. It's the too early use of the
function that is the problem here.

Aye I meant removing the assertion is bad, not the assert. Looks like this needs bit more investigation to see what exact bits inside security_load_policy causes this, so I'll do that.

null pointer deref as in the submitted patch seems to be fixing it. I'm
suspecting it was always broken somehow but just was hidden or had
different side effects on 4.1 than it does now. I do lack for a good
explanation why fiddling with null addresses breaks up this assert, though.
Also, you didn't show the call trace that made things get here (yes,
you may need to construct this manually). I'm in no way convinced
that there's a NULL pointer involved here at all - the fact that CR2
is zero doesn't mean a page fault occurred in the first place.
Yeah will investigate more
Jan



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.