linux-kernel - Re: kernel BUG at mm/huge

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20200622215658.GC12414@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Jun 2020 17:56:58 -0400
From:   Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
To:     Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
Cc:     Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
        iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Wei Yang <richardw.yang@...ux.intel.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at mm/huge_memory.c:2613!

Hello,

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 04:30:41PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 2020-06-22 13:46, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > + Robin
> > 
> > Robin, any idea on this?
> 
> After a bit of archaeology, this dates back to the original review:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/54C285D4.3070802@arm.com/
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/54DA2666.9030003@arm.com/
> 
> In summary: originally this inherited from other arch code that did 
> simply strip __GFP_COMP; that was deemed questionable because of the 
> nonsensical comment about CONFIG_HUGETLBFS that was stuck to it; the 
> current code is like it is because in 5 and a half years nobody said 
> that it's wrong :)
> 
> If there actually *are* good reasons for stripping __GFP_COMP, then I've 
> certainly no objection to doing so.

The main question is if there's any good reasons for not forbidding
__GFP_COMP to be specified in the callers. The reason given in the
comment isn't convincing.

I don't see how a caller that gets a pointer can care about how the
page structure looks like and in turn why it's asking for __GFP_COMP.

As far as I can tell there are two orthogonal issues in play here:

1) The comment about __GFP_COMP facilitating the sound driver to do
   partial mapping doesn't make much sense. It's probably best to
   WARN_ON immediately in dma_alloc_coherent if __GFP_COMP is
   specified, not only down the call stack in the
   __iommu_dma_alloc_pages() path.

   Note: the CMA paths would already ignore __GFP_COMP if it's
   specified so that __GFP_COMP request can already be ignored. It
   sounds preferable to warn the caller it's asking something it can't
   get, than to silently ignore __GFP_COMP.

   On a side note: hugetlbfs/THP pages can only be allocated with
   __GFP_COMP because for example put_page() must work on all tail
   pages (you can't call compound_head() unless the tail page is part
   of a compound page). But for private driver pages mapped by
   remap_pfn_range, any full or partial mapping is done manually and
   nobody can call GUP on VM_PFNMAP|VM_IO anyway (there's not even the
   requirement of a page struct backing those mappings in fact).

2) __iommu_dma_alloc_pages cannot use __GFP_COMP if it intends to
   return an array of small pages, which is the only thing that the
   current sg_alloc_table_from_pages() supports in input. split_page
   will work as expected to generate small pages from non-compound
   order>0 pages, incidentally it's implement on mm/page_alloc.c, not
   in huge_memory.c.

   split_huge_page as opposed is not intended to be used on newly
   allocated compound page. Maybe we should renamed it to
   split_trans_huge_page to make it more explicit, since it won't even
   work on hugetlbfs (compound) pages.

Thanks,
Andrea