linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] mm/percpu.c: fix memory leakage issue when allocate a odd alignment area

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: <57FDE531.7060003@zoho.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Oct 2016 15:24:33 +0800
From:   zijun_hu <zijun_hu@...o.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, zijun_hu@....com,
        tj@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, cl@...ux.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] mm/percpu.c: fix memory leakage issue when
 allocate a odd alignment area

On 10/12/2016 02:53 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 12-10-16 08:28:17, zijun_hu wrote:
>> On 2016/10/12 1:22, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Tue 11-10-16 21:24:50, zijun_hu wrote:
>>>> From: zijun_hu <zijun_hu@....com>
>>>>
>>>> the LSB of a chunk->map element is used for free/in-use flag of a area
>>>> and the other bits for offset, the sufficient and necessary condition of
>>>> this usage is that both size and alignment of a area must be even numbers
>>>> however, pcpu_alloc() doesn't force its @align parameter a even number
>>>> explicitly, so a odd @align maybe causes a series of errors, see below
>>>> example for concrete descriptions.
>>>
>>> Is or was there any user who would use a different than even (or power of 2)
>>> alighment? If not is this really worth handling?
>>>
>>
>> it seems only a power of 2 alignment except 1 can make sure it work very well,
>> that is a strict limit, maybe this more strict limit should be checked
> 
> I fail to see how any other alignment would actually make any sense
> what so ever. Look, I am not a maintainer of this code but adding a new
> code to catch something that doesn't make any sense sounds dubious at
> best to me.
> 
> I could understand this patch if you see a problem and want to prevent
> it from repeating bug doing these kind of changes just in case sounds
> like a bad idea.
> 

thanks for your reply

should we have a generic discussion whether such patches which considers
many boundary or rare conditions are necessary.

i found the following code segments in mm/vmalloc.c
static struct vmap_area *alloc_vmap_area(unsigned long size,
                                unsigned long align,
                                unsigned long vstart, unsigned long vend,
                                int node, gfp_t gfp_mask)
{
...

        BUG_ON(!size);
        BUG_ON(offset_in_page(size));
        BUG_ON(!is_power_of_2(align));


should we make below declarations as conventions
1) when we say 'alignment', it means align to a power of 2 value
   for example, aligning value @v to @b implicit @v is power of 2
   , align 10 to 4 is 12
2) when we say 'round value @v up/down to boundary @b', it means the 
   result is a times of @b,  it don't requires @b is a power of 2