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  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, 30 Apr 2019 15:59:39 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io_uring: avoid page allocation warnings

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 07:18:10AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 02:24:05PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > In io_sqe_buffer_register() we allocate a number of arrays based on the
> > iov_len from the user-provided iov. While we limit iov_len to SZ_1G,
> > we can still attempt to allocate arrays exceeding MAX_ORDER.
> > 
> > On a 64-bit system with 4KiB pages, for an iov where iov_base = 0x10 and
> > iov_len = SZ_1G, we'll calculate that nr_pages = 262145. When we try to
> > allocate a corresponding array of (16-byte) bio_vecs, requiring 4194320
> > bytes, which is greater than 4MiB. This results in SLUB warning that
> > we're trying to allocate greater than MAX_ORDER, and failing the
> > allocation.
> > 
> > Avoid this by passing __GFP_NOWARN when allocating arrays for the
> > user-provided iov_len. We'll gracefully handle the failed allocation,
> > returning -ENOMEM to userspace.
> > 
> > We should probably consider lowering the limit below SZ_1G, or reworking
> > the array allocations.
> 
> I'd suggest that kvmalloc is probably our friend here ... we don't really
> want to return -ENOMEM to userspace for this case, I don't think.

Sure. I'll go verify that the uring code doesn't assume this memory is
physically contiguous.

I also guess we should be passing GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT rateh than a plain
GFP_KERNEL.

Thanks,
Mark.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists