linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] kasan: Don't allocate page tables in kasan_release

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:   Fri, 6 Dec 2019 19:20:39 +0300
From:   Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
        Daniel Axtens <dja@...ens.net>, Qian Cai <cai@....pw>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] kasan: Don't allocate page tables in
 kasan_release_vmalloc()



On 12/5/19 1:22 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed,  4 Dec 2019 23:45:34 +0300 Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com> wrote:
> 
>> The purpose of kasan_release_vmalloc() is to unmap and deallocate shadow
>> memory. The usage of apply_to_page_range() isn't suitable in that scenario
>> because it allocates pages to fill missing page tables entries.
>> This also cause sleep in atomic bug:
>>
>> 	BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/page_alloc.c:4681
>> 	in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, non_block: 0, pid: 15087, name:
>>
>> 	Call Trace:
>> 	 __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:77 [inline]
>> 	 dump_stack+0x199/0x216 lib/dump_stack.c:118
>> 	 ___might_sleep.cold.97+0x1f5/0x238 kernel/sched/core.c:6800
>> 	 __might_sleep+0x95/0x190 kernel/sched/core.c:6753
>> 	 prepare_alloc_pages mm/page_alloc.c:4681 [inline]
>> 	 __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x3cd/0x890 mm/page_alloc.c:4730
>> 	 alloc_pages_current+0x10c/0x210 mm/mempolicy.c:2211
>> 	 alloc_pages include/linux/gfp.h:532 [inline]
>> 	 __get_free_pages+0xc/0x40 mm/page_alloc.c:4786
>> 	 __pte_alloc_one_kernel include/asm-generic/pgalloc.h:21 [inline]
>> 	 pte_alloc_one_kernel include/asm-generic/pgalloc.h:33 [inline]
>> 	 __pte_alloc_kernel+0x1d/0x200 mm/memory.c:459
>> 	 apply_to_pte_range mm/memory.c:2031 [inline]
>> 	 apply_to_pmd_range mm/memory.c:2068 [inline]
>> 	 apply_to_pud_range mm/memory.c:2088 [inline]
>> 	 apply_to_p4d_range mm/memory.c:2108 [inline]
>> 	 apply_to_page_range+0x77d/0xa00 mm/memory.c:2133
>> 	 kasan_release_vmalloc+0xa7/0xc0 mm/kasan/common.c:970
>> 	 __purge_vmap_area_lazy+0xcbb/0x1f30 mm/vmalloc.c:1313
>> 	 try_purge_vmap_area_lazy mm/vmalloc.c:1332 [inline]
>> 	 free_vmap_area_noflush+0x2ca/0x390 mm/vmalloc.c:1368
>> 	 free_unmap_vmap_area mm/vmalloc.c:1381 [inline]
>> 	 remove_vm_area+0x1cc/0x230 mm/vmalloc.c:2209
>> 	 vm_remove_mappings mm/vmalloc.c:2236 [inline]
>> 	 __vunmap+0x223/0xa20 mm/vmalloc.c:2299
>> 	 __vfree+0x3f/0xd0 mm/vmalloc.c:2356
>> 	 __vmalloc_area_node mm/vmalloc.c:2507 [inline]
>> 	 __vmalloc_node_range+0x5d5/0x810 mm/vmalloc.c:2547
>> 	 __vmalloc_node mm/vmalloc.c:2607 [inline]
>> 	 __vmalloc_node_flags mm/vmalloc.c:2621 [inline]
>> 	 vzalloc+0x6f/0x80 mm/vmalloc.c:2666
>> 	 alloc_one_pg_vec_page net/packet/af_packet.c:4233 [inline]
>> 	 alloc_pg_vec net/packet/af_packet.c:4258 [inline]
>> 	 packet_set_ring+0xbc0/0x1b50 net/packet/af_packet.c:4342
>> 	 packet_setsockopt+0xed7/0x2d90 net/packet/af_packet.c:3695
>> 	 __sys_setsockopt+0x29b/0x4d0 net/socket.c:2117
>> 	 __do_sys_setsockopt net/socket.c:2133 [inline]
>> 	 __se_sys_setsockopt net/socket.c:2130 [inline]
>> 	 __x64_sys_setsockopt+0xbe/0x150 net/socket.c:2130
>> 	 do_syscall_64+0xfa/0x780 arch/x86/entry/common.c:294
>> 	 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe
> 
> Why is this warning happening?  Some lock held?  If so, which one?

spin_lock(&free_vmap_area_lock);

> 
>> Add kasan_unmap_page_range() which skips empty page table entries instead
>> of allocating them.
> 
> Adding an open-coded range walker is unfortunate.  Did you consider
> generalizing apply_to_page_range() for this purpose?  I did - it looks
> messy.
> 
> Somewhat.  I guess adding another arg to
> apply_to_p4d_range...apply_to_pte_range wouldn't kill us.  I wonder if
> there would be other sites which could utilize the additional control.
> 
>