| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20181113152941.cc328e48d5c0c2f366f5db83@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 15:29:41 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: Kyungtae Kim <kt0755@...il.com>, pavel.tatashin@...rosoft.com,
vbabka@...e.cz, 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 Tue, 13 Nov 2018 10:43:05 +0100 Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 09:35:29 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] mm, page_alloc: check for max order in hot path
>
> Konstantin has noticed that kvmalloc might trigger the following warning
> [Thu Nov 1 08:43:56 2018] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 6676 at mm/vmstat.c:986 __fragmentation_index+0x54/0x60
um, wait...
> [...]
> [Thu Nov 1 08:43:56 2018] Call Trace:
> [Thu Nov 1 08:43:56 2018] fragmentation_index+0x76/0x90
> [Thu Nov 1 08:43:56 2018] compaction_suitable+0x4f/0xf0
> [Thu Nov 1 08:43:56 2018] shrink_node+0x295/0x310
> [Thu Nov 1 08:43:56 2018] node_reclaim+0x205/0x250
> [Thu Nov 1 08:43:56 2018] get_page_from_freelist+0x649/0xad0
> [Thu Nov 1 08:43:56 2018] ? get_page_from_freelist+0x2d4/0xad0
> [Thu Nov 1 08:43:56 2018] ? release_sock+0x19/0x90
> [Thu Nov 1 08:43:56 2018] ? do_ipv6_setsockopt.isra.5+0x10da/0x1290
> [Thu Nov 1 08:43:56 2018] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x12a/0x2a0
> [Thu Nov 1 08:43:56 2018] kmalloc_large_node+0x47/0x90
> [Thu Nov 1 08:43:56 2018] __kmalloc_node+0x22b/0x2e0
> [Thu Nov 1 08:43:56 2018] kvmalloc_node+0x3e/0x70
> [Thu Nov 1 08:43:56 2018] xt_alloc_table_info+0x3a/0x80 [x_tables]
> [Thu Nov 1 08:43:56 2018] do_ip6t_set_ctl+0xcd/0x1c0 [ip6_tables]
> [Thu Nov 1 08:43:56 2018] nf_setsockopt+0x44/0x60
> [Thu Nov 1 08:43:56 2018] SyS_setsockopt+0x6f/0xc0
> [Thu Nov 1 08:43:56 2018] do_syscall_64+0x67/0x120
> [Thu Nov 1 08:43:56 2018] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x3d/0xa2
If kvalloc_node() is going to call kmalloc() without checking for a
huge allocation request then surely it should set __GFP_NOWARN. And it
shouldn't bother at all if size > KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE, surely? So
something like
--- a/mm/util.c~a
+++ a/mm/util.c
@@ -393,11 +393,16 @@ void *kvmalloc_node(size_t size, gfp_t f
void *ret;
/*
- * vmalloc uses GFP_KERNEL for some internal allocations (e.g page tables)
- * so the given set of flags has to be compatible.
+ * vmalloc uses GFP_KERNEL for some internal allocations (e.g page
+ * tables) so the given set of flags has to be compatible.
*/
- if ((flags & GFP_KERNEL) != GFP_KERNEL)
+ if ((flags & GFP_KERNEL) != GFP_KERNEL) {
+ if (size > KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE)
+ return NULL;
+ if (size > PAGE_SIZE)
+ flags |= __GFP_NOWARN;
return kmalloc_node(size, flags, node);
+ }
/*
* We want to attempt a large physically contiguous block first because
> the problem is that we only check for an out of bound order in the slow
> path and the node reclaim might happen from the fast path already. This
> is fixable by making sure that kvmalloc doesn't ever use kmalloc for
> requests that are larger than KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE but this also shows that
> the code is rather fragile. A recent UBSAN report just underlines that
> by the following report
>
> UBSAN: Undefined behaviour in mm/page_alloc.c:3117:19
> shift exponent 51 is too large for 32-bit type 'int'
> CPU: 0 PID: 6520 Comm: syz-executor1 Not tainted 4.19.0-rc2 #1
> Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS Bochs 01/01/2011
> Call Trace:
> __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:77 [inline]
> dump_stack+0xd2/0x148 lib/dump_stack.c:113
> ubsan_epilogue+0x12/0x94 lib/ubsan.c:159
> __ubsan_handle_shift_out_of_bounds+0x2b6/0x30b lib/ubsan.c:425
> __zone_watermark_ok+0x2c7/0x400 mm/page_alloc.c:3117
> zone_watermark_fast mm/page_alloc.c:3216 [inline]
> get_page_from_freelist+0xc49/0x44c0 mm/page_alloc.c:3300
> __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x21e/0x640 mm/page_alloc.c:4370
> alloc_pages_current+0xcc/0x210 mm/mempolicy.c:2093
> alloc_pages include/linux/gfp.h:509 [inline]
> __get_free_pages+0x12/0x60 mm/page_alloc.c:4414
> dma_mem_alloc+0x36/0x50 arch/x86/include/asm/floppy.h:156
> raw_cmd_copyin drivers/block/floppy.c:3159 [inline]
> raw_cmd_ioctl drivers/block/floppy.c:3206 [inline]
> fd_locked_ioctl+0xa00/0x2c10 drivers/block/floppy.c:3544
> fd_ioctl+0x40/0x60 drivers/block/floppy.c:3571
> __blkdev_driver_ioctl block/ioctl.c:303 [inline]
> blkdev_ioctl+0xb3c/0x1a30 block/ioctl.c:601
> block_ioctl+0x105/0x150 fs/block_dev.c:1883
> vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:46 [inline]
> do_vfs_ioctl+0x1c0/0x1150 fs/ioctl.c:687
> ksys_ioctl+0x9e/0xb0 fs/ioctl.c:702
> __do_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:709 [inline]
> __se_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:707 [inline]
> __x64_sys_ioctl+0x7e/0xc0 fs/ioctl.c:707
> do_syscall_64+0xc4/0x510 arch/x86/entry/common.c:290
> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
And we could fix this in the floppy driver.
> Note that this is not a kvmalloc path. It is just that the fast path
> really depends on having sanitzed order as well. Therefore move the
> order check to the fast path.
But do we really need to do this? Are there any other known potential
callsites?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists