linux-kernel - [PATCH 3.3-rc] memblock: Fix alloc failure due to dumb underflow protection in memblock_find_in_range

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]

Message-ID: <20120113181412.GA11112@google.com>
Date:	Fri, 13 Jan 2012 10:14:12 -0800
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rjw@...k.pl,
	xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: [PATCH 3.3-rc] memblock: Fix alloc failure due to dumb underflow
 protection in memblock_find_in_range_node()

7bd0b0f0da "memblock: Reimplement memblock allocation using reverse
free area iterator" implemented simple top-down allocator using
reverse memblock iterator.  To avoid underflow in the allocator loop,
it simply raised the lower boundary to the requested size under the
assumption that requested size would be far smaller than available
memblocks.

This causes early page table allocation failure under certain
configurations.  Fix it by checking for underflow directly instead of
bumping up lower bound.

Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Reported-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
LKML-Reference: <20120110202838.GA10402@...nom.dumpdata.com>
---
Sorry, I wrote the patch description and everything but forgot to
actually send it out. :)

Ingo, the new memblock allocator went too far with simplification and
caused unnecessary allocation failure.  The fix is fairly obvious and
simple.  Can you please route this patch?

Thanks.

 mm/memblock.c |    7 +++++--
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c
index 2f55f19..77b5f22 100644
--- a/mm/memblock.c
+++ b/mm/memblock.c
@@ -106,14 +106,17 @@ phys_addr_t __init_memblock memblock_find_in_range_node(phys_addr_t start,
 	if (end == MEMBLOCK_ALLOC_ACCESSIBLE)
 		end = memblock.current_limit;
 
-	/* adjust @start to avoid underflow and allocating the first page */
-	start = max3(start, size, (phys_addr_t)PAGE_SIZE);
+	/* avoid allocating the first page */
+	start = max_t(phys_addr_t, start, PAGE_SIZE);
 	end = max(start, end);
 
 	for_each_free_mem_range_reverse(i, nid, &this_start, &this_end, NULL) {
 		this_start = clamp(this_start, start, end);
 		this_end = clamp(this_end, start, end);
 
+		if (this_end < size)
+			continue;
+
 		cand = round_down(this_end - size, align);
 		if (cand >= this_start)
 			return cand;
--
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/