linux-kernel - Re: [patch] mm, page_alloc: move_freepages should not examine struct page of reserved memory

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:   Tue, 13 Aug 2019 14:16:30 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mm, page_alloc: move_freepages should not examine
 struct page of reserved memory

On Mon, 12 Aug 2019 20:37:11 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> wrote:

> After commit 907ec5fca3dc ("mm: zero remaining unavailable struct pages"),
> struct page of reserved memory is zeroed.  This causes page->flags to be 0
> and fixes issues related to reading /proc/kpageflags, for example, of
> reserved memory.
> 
> The VM_BUG_ON() in move_freepages_block(), however, assumes that
> page_zone() is meaningful even for reserved memory.  That assumption is no
> longer true after the aforementioned commit.
> 
> There's no reason why move_freepages_block() should be testing the
> legitimacy of page_zone() for reserved memory; its scope is limited only
> to pages on the zone's freelist.
> 
> Note that pfn_valid() can be true for reserved memory: there is a backing
> struct page.  The check for page_to_nid(page) is also buggy but reserved
> memory normally only appears on node 0 so the zeroing doesn't affect this.
> 
> Move the debug checks to after verifying PageBuddy is true.  This isolates
> the scope of the checks to only be for buddy pages which are on the zone's
> freelist which move_freepages_block() is operating on.  In this case, an
> incorrect node or zone is a bug worthy of being warned about (and the
> examination of struct page is acceptable bcause this memory is not
> reserved).

I'm thinking Fixes:907ec5fca3dc and Cc:stable?  But 907ec5fca3dc is
almost a year old, so you were doing something special to trigger this?