| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20191014133617.GJ317@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 15:36:17 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Oscar Salvador <OSalvador@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mm/memory-failure.c: Don't access uninitialized
memmaps in memory_failure()
[Cc Oscar]
On Fri 11-10-19 12:13:17, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 11.10.19 08:02, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 09:58:40AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> On 10.10.19 09:52, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>> On 10.10.19 09:35, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>>> On Thu 10-10-19 09:27:32, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>>>> On 09.10.19 16:43, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wed 09-10-19 16:24:35, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>>>>>> We should check for pfn_to_online_page() to not access uninitialized
> >>>>>>> memmaps. Reshuffle the code so we don't have to duplicate the error
> >>>>>>> message.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Cc: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
> >>>>>>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> >>>>>>> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
> >>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>> mm/memory-failure.c | 14 ++++++++------
> >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/memory-failure.c b/mm/memory-failure.c
> >>>>>>> index 7ef849da8278..e866e6e5660b 100644
> >>>>>>> --- a/mm/memory-failure.c
> >>>>>>> +++ b/mm/memory-failure.c
> >>>>>>> @@ -1253,17 +1253,19 @@ int memory_failure(unsigned long pfn, int flags)
> >>>>>>> if (!sysctl_memory_failure_recovery)
> >>>>>>> panic("Memory failure on page %lx", pfn);
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - if (!pfn_valid(pfn)) {
> >>>>>>> + p = pfn_to_online_page(pfn);
> >>>>>>> + if (!p) {
> >>>>>>> + if (pfn_valid(pfn)) {
> >>>>>>> + pgmap = get_dev_pagemap(pfn, NULL);
> >>>>>>> + if (pgmap)
> >>>>>>> + return memory_failure_dev_pagemap(pfn, flags,
> >>>>>>> + pgmap);
> >>>>>>> + }
> >>>>>>> pr_err("Memory failure: %#lx: memory outside kernel control\n",
> >>>>>>> pfn);
> >>>>>>> return -ENXIO;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Don't we need that earlier at hwpoison_inject level?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Theoretically yes, this is another instance. But pfn_to_online_page(pfn)
> >>>>> alone would not be sufficient as discussed. We would, again, have to
> >>>>> special-case ZONE_DEVICE via things like get_dev_pagemap() ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But mm/hwpoison-inject.c:hwpoison_inject() is a pure debug feature either way:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /*
> >>>>> * Note that the below poison/unpoison interfaces do not involve
> >>>>> * hardware status change, hence do not require hardware support.
> >>>>> * They are mainly for testing hwpoison in software level.
> >>>>> */
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So it's not that bad compared to memory_failure() called from real HW or
> >>>>> drivers/base/memory.c:soft_offline_page_store()/hard_offline_page_store()
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, this is just a toy. And yes we need to handle zone device pages
> >>>> here because a) people likely want to test MCE behavior even on these
> >>>> pages and b) HW can really trigger MCEs there as well. I was just
> >>>> pointing that the patch is likely incomplete.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I rather think this deserves a separate patch as it is a separate
> >>> interface :)
> >>>
> >>> I do wonder why hwpoison_inject() has to perform so much extra work
> >>> compared to other memory_failure() users. This smells like legacy
> >>> leftovers to me, but I might be wrong. The interface is fairly old,
> >>> though. Does anybody know why we need this magic? I can spot quite some
> >>> duplicate checks/things getting performed.
> >
> > It concerns me too, this *is* an old legacy code. I guess it was left as-is
> > because no one complained about it. That's not good, so I'll do some cleanup.
>
> Most of that stuff was introduced in
>
> commit 31d3d3484f9bd263925ecaa341500ac2df3a5d9b
> Author: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
> Date: Wed Dec 16 12:19:59 2009 +0100
>
> HWPOISON: limit hwpoison injector to known page types
>
> __memory_failure()'s workflow is
>
> set PG_hwpoison
> //...
> unset PG_hwpoison if didn't pass hwpoison filter
>
> That could kill unrelated process if it happens to page fault on the
> page with the (temporary) PG_hwpoison. The race should be big enough to
> appear in stress tests.
>
> Fix it by grabbing the page and checking filter at inject time. This
> also avoids the very noisy "Injecting memory failure..." messages.
>
>
> Now, we still have the same "issue" in memory_failure() today:
>
>
> if (TestSetPageHWPoison(p)) {
> pr_err("Memory failure: %#lx: already hardware poisoned\n",
> pfn);
> return 0;
> }
> [...]
> if (hwpoison_filter(p)) {
> if (TestClearPageHWPoison(p))
> num_poisoned_pages_dec();
> unlock_page(p);
> put_hwpoison_page(p);
> return 0;
> }
>
> However, I don't understand why we need that special handling only for this
> debug interface and not the other users.
>
> I'd vote for ripping out that legacy crap (so the interface works correctly
> with ZONE_DEVICE) and instead (if really required) rework memory_failure()
> to not produce such side effects.
I do agree. The two should be really using the same code. My
understanding was that MADV_HWPOISON was there to test the actual MCE
behavior (and the man page seems to agree with that).
Oscar is working on a rewrite. Not sure he has considered this as well.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists