linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] remove BUG() in possible but rare condition

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: <20120411184845.GA24831@tiehlicka.suse.cz>
Date:	Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:48:45 +0200
From:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devel@...nvz.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	cgroups@...r.kernel.org, Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com, Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove BUG() in possible but rare condition

On Wed 11-04-12 15:10:24, Glauber Costa wrote:
> While stressing the kernel with with failing allocations today,
> I hit the following chain of events:
> 
> alloc_page_buffers():
> 
> 	bh = alloc_buffer_head(GFP_NOFS);
> 	if (!bh)
> 		goto no_grow; <= path taken
> 
> grow_dev_page():
>         bh = alloc_page_buffers(page, size, 0);
>         if (!bh)
>                 goto failed;  <= taken, consequence of the above
> 
> and then the failed path BUG()s the kernel.
> 
> The failure is inserted a litte bit artificially, but even then,
> I see no reason why it should be deemed impossible in a real box.
> 
> Even though this is not a condition that we expect to see
> around every time, failed allocations are expected to be handled,
> and BUG() sounds just too much. As a matter of fact, grow_dev_page()
> can return NULL just fine in other circumstances, so I propose we just
> remove it, then.

I am not familiar with the code much but a trivial call chain walk up to
write_dev_supers (in btrfs) shows that we do not check for the return value
from __getblk so we would nullptr and there might be more. 
I guess these need some treat before the BUG might be removed, right?

> 
> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
> CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> ---
>  fs/buffer.c |    1 -
>  1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/buffer.c b/fs/buffer.c
> index 36d6665..351e18e 100644
> --- a/fs/buffer.c
> +++ b/fs/buffer.c
> @@ -985,7 +985,6 @@ grow_dev_page(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block,
>  	return page;
>  
>  failed:
> -	BUG();
>  	unlock_page(page);
>  	page_cache_release(page);
>  	return NULL;
> -- 
> 1.7.7.6
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@...ck.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@...ck.org"> email@...ck.org </a>

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX s.r.o.
Lihovarska 1060/12
190 00 Praha 9    
Czech Republic
--
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/