linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] driver core: ensure a device has valid node id in device

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190911053334.GH4023@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Wed, 11 Sep 2019 07:33:34 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, rafael@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
        mingo@...nel.org, linuxarm@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver core: ensure a device has valid node id in
 device_add()

On Tue 10-09-19 14:53:39, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 10-09-19 20:47:40, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> > On 2019/9/10 19:12, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 01:04:51PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > >> On Tue 10-09-19 18:58:05, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> > >>> On 2019/9/10 17:31, Greg KH wrote:
> > >>>> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 02:43:32PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> > >>>>> On 2019/9/9 17:53, Greg KH wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 02:04:23PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> > >>>>>>> Currently a device does not belong to any of the numa nodes
> > >>>>>>> (dev->numa_node is NUMA_NO_NODE) when the node id is neither
> > >>>>>>> specified by fw nor by virtual device layer and the device has
> > >>>>>>> no parent device.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Is this really a problem?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Not really.
> > >>>>> Someone need to guess the node id when it is not specified, right?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> No, why?  Guessing guarantees you will get it wrong on some systems.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Are you seeing real problems because the id is not being set?  What
> > >>>> problem is this fixing that you can actually observe?
> > >>>
> > >>> When passing the return value of dev_to_node() to cpumask_of_node()
> > >>> without checking the node id if the node id is not valid, there is
> > >>> global-out-of-bounds detected by KASAN as below:
> > >>
> > >> OK, I seem to remember this being brought up already. And now when I
> > >> think about it, we really want to make cpumask_of_node NUMA_NO_NODE
> > >> aware. That means using the same trick the allocator does for this
> > >> special case.
> > > 
> > > That seems reasonable to me, and much more "obvious" as to what is going
> > > on.
> > > 
> > 
> > Ok, thanks for the suggestion.
> > 
> > For arm64 and x86, there are two versions of cpumask_of_node().
> > 
> > when CONFIG_DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS is defined, the cpumask_of_node()
> >    in arch/x86/mm/numa.c is used, which does partial node id checking:
> > 
> > const struct cpumask *cpumask_of_node(int node)
> > {
> >         if (node >= nr_node_ids) {
> >                 printk(KERN_WARNING
> >                         "cpumask_of_node(%d): node > nr_node_ids(%u)\n",
> >                         node, nr_node_ids);
> >                 dump_stack();
> >                 return cpu_none_mask;
> >         }
> >         if (node_to_cpumask_map[node] == NULL) {
> >                 printk(KERN_WARNING
> >                         "cpumask_of_node(%d): no node_to_cpumask_map!\n",
> >                         node);
> >                 dump_stack();
> >                 return cpu_online_mask;
> >         }
> >         return node_to_cpumask_map[node];
> > }
> > 
> > when CONFIG_DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS is undefined, the cpumask_of_node()
> >    in arch/x86/include/asm/topology.h is used:
> > 
> > static inline const struct cpumask *cpumask_of_node(int node)
> > {
> >         return node_to_cpumask_map[node];
> > }
> 
> I would simply go with. There shouldn't be any need for heavy weight
> checks that CONFIG_DEBUG_PER_CPU_MAPS has.
> 
> static inline const struct cpumask *cpumask_of_node(int node)
> {
> 	/* A nice comment goes here */
> 	if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE)
> 		return node_to_cpumask_map[numa_mem_id()];
>         return node_to_cpumask_map[node];
> }

Sleeping over this and thinking more about the actual semantic the above
is wrong. We cannot really copy the page allocator logic. Why? Simply
because the page allocator doesn't enforce the near node affinity. It
just picks it up as a preferred node but then it is free to fallback to
any other numa node. This is not the case here and node_to_cpumask_map will
only restrict to the particular node's cpus which would have really non
deterministic behavior depending on where the code is executed. So in
fact we really want to return cpu_online_mask for NUMA_NO_NODE.

Sorry about the confusion.
> -- 
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs