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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 16 May 2019 09:30:49 +0200
From:   Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Tobin C. Harding" <tobin@...nel.org>
Cc:     Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Garnier <thgarnie@...gle.com>,
        Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...ymobile.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] mm/vmap: keep track of free blocks for vmap allocation

+Tobin C. Harding <tobin@...nel.org>

On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 5:24 PM Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Hello, Andrew.
>
> > An earlier version of this patch was accused of crashing the kernel:
> >
> > https://lists.01.org/pipermail/lkp/2019-April/010004.html
> >
> > does the v4 series address this?
> I tried before to narrow down that crash but i did not succeed, so
> i have never seen that before on my test environment as well as
> during running lkp-tests including trinity test case:
>
> test-url: http://codemonkey.org.uk/projects/trinity/
>
> But after analysis of the Call-trace and slob_alloc():
>
> <snip>
> [    0.395722] Call Trace:
> [    0.395722]  slob_alloc+0x1c9/0x240
> [    0.395722]  kmem_cache_alloc+0x70/0x80
> [    0.395722]  acpi_ps_alloc_op+0xc0/0xca
> [    0.395722]  acpi_ps_get_next_arg+0x3fa/0x6ed
> <snip>
>
> <snip>
>     /* Attempt to alloc */
>     prev = sp->lru.prev;
>     b = slob_page_alloc(sp, size, align);
>     if (!b)
>         continue;
>
>     /* Improve fragment distribution and reduce our average
>      * search time by starting our next search here. (see
>      * Knuth vol 1, sec 2.5, pg 449) */
>     if (prev != slob_list->prev &&
>             slob_list->next != prev->next)
>         list_move_tail(slob_list, prev->next); <- Crash is here in __list_add_valid()
>     break;
> }
> <snip>
>
> i see that it tries to manipulate with "prev" node that may be removed
> from the list by slob_page_alloc() earlier if whole page is used. I think
> that crash has to be fixed by the below commit:
>
> https://www.spinics.net/lists/mm-commits/msg137923.html
>
> it was introduced into 5.1-rc3 kernel.
>
> Why ("mm/vmalloc.c: keep track of free blocks for vmap allocation")
> was accused is probably because it uses "kmem cache allocations with struct alignment"
> instead of kmalloc()/kzalloc(). Maybe because of bigger size requests
> it became easier to trigger the BUG. But that is theory.
>
> --
> Vlad Rezki



-- 
Uladzislau Rezki

Powered by blists - more mailing lists