netdev - Re: [PATCH net V3 1/2] ptr_ring: try vmalloc() when kmalloc() fails

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Fri, 9 Feb 2018 05:56:33 +0200
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net V3 1/2] ptr_ring: try vmalloc() when kmalloc() fails

On Fri, Feb 09, 2018 at 11:49:12AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2018年02月09日 03:17, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 02:58:40PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On 2018年02月08日 12:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 11:59:24AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > This patch switch to use kvmalloc_array() for using a vmalloc()
> > > > > fallback to help in case kmalloc() fails.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Reported-by:syzbot+e4d4f9ddd4295539735d@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> > > > > Fixes: 2e0ab8ca83c12 ("ptr_ring: array based FIFO for pointers")
> > > > I guess the actual patch is the one that switches tun to ptr_ring.
> > > I think not, since the issue was large allocation.
> > > 
> > > > In fact, I think the actual bugfix is patch 2/2. This specific one
> > > > just makes kmalloc less likely to fail but that's
> > > > not what syzbot reported.
> > > Agree.
> > > 
> > > > Then I would add this patch on top to make kmalloc less likely to fail.
> > > Ok.
> > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang<jasowang@...hat.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >    include/linux/ptr_ring.h | 10 +++++-----
> > > > >    1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/ptr_ring.h b/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
> > > > > index 1883d61..2af71a7 100644
> > > > > --- a/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
> > > > > +++ b/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
> > > > > @@ -466,7 +466,7 @@ static inline int ptr_ring_consume_batched_bh(struct ptr_ring *r,
> > > > >    static inline void **__ptr_ring_init_queue_alloc(unsigned int size, gfp_t gfp)
> > > > >    {
> > > > > -	return kcalloc(size, sizeof(void *), gfp);
> > > > > +	return kvmalloc_array(size, sizeof(void *), gfp | __GFP_ZERO);
> > > > >    }
> > > > >    static inline void __ptr_ring_set_size(struct ptr_ring *r, int size)
> > > > This implies a bunch of limitations on the flags. From kvmalloc_node
> > > > docs:
> > > > 
> > > >    * Reclaim modifiers - __GFP_NORETRY and __GFP_NOFAIL are not supported.
> > > >    * __GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL is supported, and it should be used only if kmalloc is
> > > >    * preferable to the vmalloc fallback, due to visible performance drawbacks.
> > > > 
> > > > Fine with all the current users, but if we go this way, please add
> > > > documentation so future users don't misuse this API.
> > > I suspect this is somehow a overkill since this means we need sync with
> > > mm/vmalloc changes in the future to keep it synced.
> > > 
> > > > Alternatively, test flags and call kvmalloc or kcalloc?
> > > Similar to the above issue, I would rather leave it as is.
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > How do we prevent someone from inevitably trying to use this with
> > GFP_ATOMIC?
> > 
> 
> Well, we somehow can't prevent this even if there's a documentation, that's
> why there's a BUG() in vmalloc code I think. And kvmalloc also requires
> GFP_KERNEL otherewise another WARN().
> 
> So looks like the WARN()/BUG() should be sufficient?

Well vmalloc only triggers when you pass in a huge size.
Let's settle for

/* Not all gfp_t flags (besides GFP_KERNEL) are allowed. See
 * documentation for vmalloc for which of them are legal.
 */

> Thanks
> 
> Another thing is kvm

?