linux-kernel - Re: UBSAN: Undefined behaviour in mm/page

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: <20181109102855.GF5321@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Fri, 9 Nov 2018 11:28:55 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Kyungtae Kim <kt0755@...il.com>,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, pavel.tatashin@...rosoft.com,
        osalvador@...e.de, rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, aaron.lu@...el.com,
        iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com,
        mgorman@...hsingularity.net, lifeasageek@...il.com,
        threeearcat@...il.com, syzkaller@...glegroups.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>
Subject: Re: UBSAN: Undefined behaviour in mm/page_alloc.c

On Fri 09-11-18 19:24:48, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2018/11/09 19:10, Vlastimil Babka wrote:>>>> +	 * reclaim >= MAX_ORDER areas which will never succeed. Callers may
> >>>> +	 * be using allocators in order of preference for an area that is
> >>>> +	 * too large.
> >>>> +	 */
> >>>> +	if (order >= MAX_ORDER) {
> >>>
> >>> Also, why not to add BUG_ON(gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL); here?
> >>
> >> Because we do not want to blow up the kernel just because of a stupid
> >> usage of the allocator. Can you think of an example where it would
> >> actually make any sense?
> >>
> >> I would argue that such a theoretical abuse would blow up on an
> >> unchecked NULL ptr access. Isn't that enough?
> > 
> > Agreed.
> > 
> 
> If someone has written a module with __GFP_NOFAIL for an architecture
> where PAGE_SIZE == 2048KB, and someone else tried to use that module on
> another architecture where PAGE_SIZE == 4KB. You are saying that
> triggering NULL pointer dereference is a fault of that user's ignorance
> about MM. You are saying that everyone knows internal of MM. Sad...

What kind of argument is this? Seriously! We do consider GFP_NOFAIL
problematic even for !order-0 requests and warn appropriately. Talking
about anything getting close to MAX_ORDER is just a crazy talk. In any
case this is largely tangential to the issue reported here.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs