linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.25-rc7-git2: Reported regressions from 2.6.24

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0803281214580.14670@woody.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:25:57 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
cc:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
	Pawel Staszewski <pstaszewski@...com.pl>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Natalie Protasevich <protasnb@...il.com>
Subject: Re: 2.6.25-rc7-git2: Reported regressions from 2.6.24

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 
> prep_zero_page does:
> 
> static inline void prep_zero_page(struct page *page, int order, gfp_t  gfp_flags)
> {
>         int i;
> 
>         /*
>          * clear_highpage() will use KM_USER0, so it's a bug to use __GFP_ZERO
>          * and __GFP_HIGHMEM from hard or soft interrupt context.
>          */
>         VM_BUG_ON((gfp_flags & __GFP_HIGHMEM) && in_interrupt());
>         for (i = 0; i < (1 << order); i++)
>                 clear_highpage(page + i);

.. and clear_highpage() does:

	void *kaddr = kmap_atomic(page, KM_USER0);
	clear_page(kaddr);

.. where kmap_atomic() on x86 does:

	kmap_atomic() ->
	  kmap_atomic_prot() ->
	    debug_kmap_atomic_prot() ->
	      if (in_irq())
	        WARN_ON_ONCE()

none of which are at all conditional on __GFP_HIGHMEM.

But none of this is relevant. The warning possibly didn't even come from 
slub, it just made me look at it - because *something* is doing GFP_ATOMIC 
together with __GFP_ZERO, and it became obvious that SLUB is one potential 
cause of that.

And the SLUB case simply isn't valid!

> Then clear_highpage calls additional checking functions that have 
> the effect of generally forbiding zeroing in interrupt context if 
> CONFIG_HIGHMEM is set. This is wrong and needs to be fixed.

No. Dammit, the bug is in SLUB.

If SLUB *ever* calls the page allocator with __GFP_ZERO set, it's a 
bug, and that has nothing to do with GFP_ATOMIC or anything else. Because 
SLUB uses its own logic for clearing the result.

Why cannot you just admit it?

Now, _outside_ of SLUB there appear to be other users too, and those users 
need to either be fixed or we need to allow __GFP_ZERO togethe with 
GFP_ATOMIC. But the fact is, SLUB had a really stupid bug that it 
shouldn't have had.

		Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/