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 12:11:59 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, 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 4/30/19 11:03 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 10:21:03AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 4/30/19 8:59 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> kvmalloc() is fine, the io_uring code doesn't care about the layout of
>> the memory, it just uses it as an index.
> 
> I've just had a go at that, but when using kvmalloc() with or without
> GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT I hit OOM and my system hangs within a few seconds with the
> syzkaller prog below:
> 
> ----
> Syzkaller reproducer:
> # {Threaded:false Collide:false Repeat:false RepeatTimes:0 Procs:1 Sandbox: Fault:false FaultCall:-1 FaultNth:0 EnableTun:false EnableNetDev:false EnableNetReset:false EnableCgroups:false EnableBinfmtMisc:false EnableCloseFds:false UseTmpDir:false HandleSegv:false Repro:false Trace:false}
> r0 = io_uring_setup(0x378, &(0x7f00000000c0))
> sendmsg$SEG6_CMD_SET_TUNSRC(0xffffffffffffffff, &(0x7f0000000240)={&(0x7f0000000000)={0x10, 0x0, 0x0, 0x40000000}, 0xc, 0x0, 0x1, 0x0, 0x0, 0x10}, 0x800)
> io_uring_register$IORING_REGISTER_BUFFERS(r0, 0x0, &(0x7f0000000000), 0x1)
> ----
> 
> ... I'm a bit worried that opens up a trivial DoS.
> 
> Thoughts?

Can you post the patch you used?

-- 
Jens Axboe

Powered by blists - more mailing lists