linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v3 2/6] cifs: Allocate validate negotiation request through kmalloc

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:40:16 -0400
From:   Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>
To:     Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>,
        "linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
        "samba-technical@...ts.samba.org" <samba-technical@...ts.samba.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch v3 2/6] cifs: Allocate validate negotiation request
 through kmalloc

On 4/18/2018 1:11 PM, Long Li wrote:
>> Subject: Re: [Patch v3 2/6] cifs: Allocate validate negotiation request through
>> kmalloc
>>
>> On 4/18/2018 9:08 AM, David Laight wrote:
>>> From: Tom Talpey
>>>> Sent: 18 April 2018 12:32
>>> ...
>>>> On 4/17/2018 8:33 PM, Long Li wrote:
>>>>> From: Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> The data buffer allocated on the stack can't be DMA'ed, and hence
>>>>> can't send through RDMA via SMB Direct.
>>>>
>>>> This comment is confusing. Any registered memory can be DMA'd, need
>>>> to state the reason for the choice here more clearly.
>>>
>>> The stack could be allocated with vmalloc().
>>> In which case the pages might not be physically contiguous and there
>>> is no
>>> (sensible) call to get the physical address required by the dma
>>> controller (or other bus master).
>>
>> Memory registration does not requires pages to be physically contiguous.
>> RDMA Regions can and do support very large physical page scatter/gather,
>> and the adapter DMA's them readily. Is this the only reason?
> 
> ib_dma_map_page will return an invalid DMA address for a buffer on stack. Even worse, this incorrect address can't be detected by ib_dma_mapping_error. Sending data from this address to hardware will not fail, but the remote peer will get junk data.
> 
> I think it makes sense as stack is dynamic and can shrink as I/O proceeds, so the buffer is gone. Other kernel code use only data on the heap for DMA, e.g. BLK/SCSI layer never use buffer on the stack to send data.

I totally agree that registering the stack is a bad idea. I mainly
suggest that you capture these fundamental ib_dma* reasons in the
commit. There's no other practical reason why the original approach
would not work.

Tom.