linux-kernel - Re: usb/gadget: warning in ep_write_iter/__alloc_pages

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: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1612130826230.31292-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date:   Tue, 13 Dec 2016 08:33:34 -0500 (EST)
From:   Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
cc:     Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
        Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
        Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>,
        Mathieu Laurendeau <mat.lau@...oste.net>,
        Bin Liu <b-liu@...com>, USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        syzkaller <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
        Cristopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: usb/gadget: warning in ep_write_iter/__alloc_pages_nodemask

On Tue, 13 Dec 2016, Michal Hocko wrote:

> > > That being said, what ep_write_iter does sounds quite stupit. It just
> > > allocates a large continuous buffer which seems to be under user
> > > control...  Aka no good! It should do that per pages or something like
> > > that. Something worth fixing
> > 
> > It's not important enough to make the driver do all this work.  If
> > users want to send large amounts of data, they can send it a page at a
> > time (or something like that).
> 
> Is it really necessary to allocate the full iov_iter_count? Why cannot
> we process the from buffer one page at a time?

We could (although one page is really too small -- USB 3.1 can transfer
800 KB per ms so we ought to handle at least 128 KB at a time).  But
turn the argument around: If the user wants to transfer that much data,
why can't he _submit_ it one page at a time?

> > If you really want to prevent the driver from attempting to allocate a
> > large buffer, all that's needed is an upper limit on the total size.  
> > For example, 64 KB.
> 
> Well, my point was that it is not really hard to imagine to deplete
> larger contiguous memory blocks (say PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER). Those are
> still causing the OOM killer and chances are that a controlled flood of
> these requests could completely DoS the system.

Putting a limit on the total size of a single transfer would prevent 
this.

Alan Stern