linux-kernel - Re: WARNING in memtype

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]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.2005090939210.4307-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date:   Sat, 9 May 2020 09:41:55 -0400 (EDT)
From:   Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        syzbot <syzbot+353be47c9ce21b68b7ed@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
        <bp@...en8.de>, <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>, <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        <hpa@...or.com>, <jeremy.linton@....com>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        <luto@...nel.org>, <mingo@...hat.com>, <peterz@...radead.org>,
        <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>, <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: WARNING in memtype_reserve

On Sat, 9 May 2020, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> writes:
> > On Sat, May 09, 2020 at 12:20:14AM -0700, syzbot wrote:
> >> memtype_reserve failed: [mem 0xffffffffff000-0x00008fff], req write-back
> >> WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 7025 at arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c:589 memtype_reserve+0x69f/0x820 arch/x86/mm/pat/memtype.c:589
> >
> > So should memtype_reserve() not do a WARN if given invalid parameters as
> > it can be triggered by userspace requests?
> >
> > A normal "invalid request" debug line is probably all that is needed,
> > right?
> 
> I disagree. The callsite espcially if user space triggerable should not
> attempt to ask for a reservation where start > end:
> 
>   >> memtype_reserve failed: [mem 0xffffffffff000-0x00008fff], req write-back
> 
> The real question is which part of the call chain is responsible for
> this. That needs to be fixed.

What about all the other ways in which a reservation request could be
invalid?  The MM core already checks for these; what point is there in
duplicating these checks in many places higher up the call chain?

Alan Stern