linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm, page_alloc: Fix a division by zero error when boosting watermarks

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:   Wed, 13 Feb 2019 14:15:18 +0000
From:   Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, page_alloc: Fix a division by zero error when
 boosting watermarks

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 02:42:36PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 2/13/19 2:19 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > Yury Norov reported that an arm64 KVM instance could not boot since after
> > v5.0-rc1 and could addressed by reverting the patches
> > 
> > 1c30844d2dfe272d58c ("mm: reclaim small amounts of memory when an external
> > 73444bc4d8f92e46a20 ("mm, page_alloc: do not wake kswapd with zone lock held")
> > 
> > The problem is that a division by zero error is possible if boosting occurs
> > either very early in boot or if the high watermark is very small. This
> > patch checks for the conditions and avoids boosting in those cases.
> 
> Hmm is it really a division by zero? The following line sets max_boost to
> pageblock_nr_pages if it's zero. And where would the division happen anyway?
> 
> So I wonder what's going on, your patch should AFAICS only take effect when
> zone->_watermark[WMARK_HIGH] is 0 or 1 to begin with, otherwise max_boost is at
> least 2?
> 

The issue can occur if pageblock_nr_pages is also zero or not yet
initialised. It means the changelog is misleading because it  has to
trigger very early in boot as happened with Yury.

> Also upon closer look, I think that (prior to the patch), boost_watermark()
> could be reduced (thanks to the max+min capping) to
> 
> zone->watermark_boost = pageblock_nr_pages
> 

I don't think it's worth being fancy about it if we're hitting
fragmentation issues that early in boot.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs