linux-kernel - Re: WARNING: kmalloc bug in input_mt_init

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]

Date:   Mon, 24 Sep 2018 15:55:04 +0000
From:   Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:     Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
cc:     Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
        syzbot+87829a10073277282ad1@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
        "linux-input@...r.kernel.org" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@...math.org>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: WARNING: kmalloc bug in input_mt_init_slots

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 5:08 PM, Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> >
> >> What was the motivation behind that WARNING about large allocations in
> >> kmalloc? Why do we want to know about them? Is the general policy that
> >> kmalloc calls with potentially large size requests need to use NOWARN?
> >> If this WARNING still considered useful? Or we should change it to
> >> pr_err?
> >
> > In general large allocs should be satisfied by the page allocator. The
> > slab allocators are used for allocating and managing small objects. The
> > page allocator has mechanisms to deal with large objects (compound pages,
> > multiple page sized allocs etc).
>
> I am asking more about the status of this warning. If it fires in
> input_mt_init_slots(), does it mean that input_mt_init_slots() needs
> to be fixed? If not, then we need to change this warning to something
> else.

Hmmm.. kmalloc falls back to the page allocator already?

See

static __always_inline void *kmalloc(size_t size, gfp_t flags)
{
        if (__builtin_constant_p(size)) {
                if (size > KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE)
                        return kmalloc_large(size, flags);


Note that this uses KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE which should be smaller than
KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE.


How large is the allocation? AFACIT nRequests larger than KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE
are larger than the maximum allowed by the page allocator. Thus the warning
and the NULL return.