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:   Tue, 25 Sep 2018 09:39:52 +0200
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To:     Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc:     Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.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, Sep 24, 2018 at 8:41 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
<dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 03:55:04PM +0000, Christopher Lameter wrote:
>> 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)) {
>
> It would not be a constant here though.
>
>>                 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.
>
> The size in this particular case is being derived from a value passed
> from userspace. Input core does not care about any limits on size of
> memory kmalloc() can support and is perfectly happy with getting NULL
> and telling userspace to go away with their silly requests by returning
> -ENOMEM.
>
> For the record: I definitely do not want to pre-sanitize size neither in
> uinput nor in input core.

Christopher,

Assuming that the size is large enough to fail in all allocators, is
this warning still useful? How? Should we remove it?