| 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: <4c36c6ce-3774-78fa-abc4-b7346bf24348@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 11:20:23 -0700
From: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
To: Qian Cai <cai@....pw>
Cc: Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
"David S.Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Longpeng <longpeng2@...wei.com>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>,
Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
Nitesh Narayan Lal <nitesh@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] Clean up hugetlb boot command line processing
On 4/20/20 8:34 AM, Qian Cai wrote:
>
>
>> On Apr 17, 2020, at 2:50 PM, Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com> wrote:
>>
>> Longpeng(Mike) reported a weird message from hugetlb command line processing
>> and proposed a solution [1]. While the proposed patch does address the
>> specific issue, there are other related issues in command line processing.
>> As hugetlbfs evolved, updates to command line processing have been made to
>> meet immediate needs and not necessarily in a coordinated manner. The result
>> is that some processing is done in arch specific code, some is done in arch
>> independent code and coordination is problematic. Semantics can vary between
>> architectures.
>>
>> The patch series does the following:
>> - Define arch specific arch_hugetlb_valid_size routine used to validate
>> passed huge page sizes.
>> - Move hugepagesz= command line parsing out of arch specific code and into
>> an arch independent routine.
>> - Clean up command line processing to follow desired semantics and
>> document those semantics.
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20200305033014.1152-1-longpeng2@huawei.com
>>
>> Mike Kravetz (4):
>> hugetlbfs: add arch_hugetlb_valid_size
>> hugetlbfs: move hugepagesz= parsing to arch independent code
>> hugetlbfs: remove hugetlb_add_hstate() warning for existing hstate
>> hugetlbfs: clean up command line processing
>
> Reverted this series fixed many undefined behaviors on arm64 with the config,
>
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cailca/linux-mm/master/arm64.config
>
> [ 54.172683][ T1] UBSAN: shift-out-of-bounds in ./include/linux/hugetlb.h:555:34
> [ 54.180411][ T1] shift exponent 4294967285 is too large for 64-bit type 'unsigned long'
> [ 54.188885][ T1] CPU: 130 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.7.0-rc2-next-20200420 #1
> [ 54.197284][ T1] Hardware name: HPE Apollo 70 /C01_APACHE_MB , BIOS L50_5.13_1.11 06/18/2019
> [ 54.207888][ T1] Call trace:
> [ 54.211100][ T1] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x224
> [ 54.215565][ T1] show_stack+0x20/0x2c
> [ 54.219651][ T1] dump_stack+0xfc/0x184
> [ 54.223829][ T1] __ubsan_handle_shift_out_of_bounds+0x304/0x344
> [ 54.230204][ T1] hugetlb_add_hstate+0x3ec/0x414
> huge_page_size at include/linux/hugetlb.h:555
> (inlined by) hugetlb_add_hstate at mm/hugetlb.c:3301
> [ 54.235191][ T1] hugetlbpage_init+0x14/0x30
> [ 54.239824][ T1] do_one_initcall+0x6c/0x144
> [ 54.244446][ T1] do_initcall_level+0x158/0x1c4
> [ 54.249336][ T1] do_initcalls+0x68/0xb0
> [ 54.253597][ T1] do_basic_setup+0x28/0x30
> [ 54.258049][ T1] kernel_init_freeable+0x19c/0x228
> [ 54.263188][ T1] kernel_init+0x14/0x208
> [ 54.267473][ T1] ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18
While rearranging the code (patch 3 in series), I made the incorrect
assumption that CONT_XXX_SIZE == (1UL << CONT_XXX_SHIFT). However,
this is not the case. Does the following patch fix these issues?
>From b75cb4a0852e208bee8c4eb347dc076fcaa88859 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 10:41:18 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] arm64/hugetlb: fix hugetlb initialization
When calling hugetlb_add_hstate() to initialize a new hugetlb size,
be sure to use correct huge pages size order.
Signed-off-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
---
arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
index 9ca840527296..a02411a1f19a 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
@@ -453,11 +453,11 @@ void huge_ptep_clear_flush(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
static int __init hugetlbpage_init(void)
{
#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_4K_PAGES
- hugetlb_add_hstate(PUD_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT);
+ hugetlb_add_hstate(ilog2(PUD_SIZE) - PAGE_SHIFT);
#endif
- hugetlb_add_hstate(CONT_PMD_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT);
- hugetlb_add_hstate(PMD_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT);
- hugetlb_add_hstate(CONT_PTE_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT);
+ hugetlb_add_hstate(ilog2(CONT_PMD_SIZE) - PAGE_SHIFT);
+ hugetlb_add_hstate(ilog2(PMD_SIZE) - PAGE_SHIFT);
+ hugetlb_add_hstate(ilog2(CONT_PTE_SIZE) - PAGE_SHIFT);
return 0;
}
--
2.25.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists