linux-kernel - Re: [Bugfix] sched: fix possible invalid memory access caused by CPU hot-addition

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: <53574755.3080809@linux.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:53:41 +0800
From:	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>
To:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bugfix] sched: fix possible invalid memory access caused by
 CPU hot-addition



On 2014/4/23 9:59, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 01:01:51PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:15:15 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 01:27:15PM +0800, Jiang Liu wrote:
>>>>> When calling kzalloc_node(size, flags, node), we should first check
>>>>> whether node is onlined, otherwise it may cause invalid memory access
>>>>> as below.
>>>>
>>>> But this is only for memory less node crap, right? 
>>>
>>> um, why are memoryless nodes crap?
>>
>> Why wouldn't they be? Having CPUs with no local memory seems decidedly
>> suboptimal.
> 
> The quick fix for memoryless node issues is usually just do cpu_to_mem() 
> rather than cpu_to_node() in the caller.  This assumes that the arch is 
> setup correctly to handle memoryless nodes with 
> CONFIG_HAVE_MEMORYLESS_NODES (and we've had problems recently with 
> memoryless nodes not being configured correctly on powerpc).
> 
> That type of a fix would probably be better handled in the slab allocator, 
> though, since kmalloc_node(nid) shouldn't crash just because nid is 
> memoryless, we should be doing local_memory_node(node) when allocating the 
> slab pages.
> 
> However, I don't think memoryless nodes are the problem here since Jiang 
> is testing for !node_online(nid) in his patch, so it's a problem with 
> cpu_to_node() pointing to an offline node.  It makes sense for the page 
> allocator to crash in such a case, the node id is erroneous.
> 
> So either the cpu-to-node mapping is invalid or alloc_fair_sched_group() 
> is allocating memory for a cpu on an offline node.  The 
> for_each_possible_cpu() looks suspicious.  There's no guarantee that 
> local_memory_node(node) for an offline node will return anything with 
> affinity, so falling back to NUMA_NO_NODE looks appropriate in Jiang's 
> patch.
Hi David,
	That's the case, alloc_fair_sched_group() is trying to allocate
memory for CPU in offline node, which then access non-exist NODE_DATA.
Thanks!
Gerry

> 
--
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/