linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2] mm: Fix warning in move_normal

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: <CAHk-=wg-_Oof43pKUHMk4ySdLwpYi7+shFg+aeV18UP2Akiv8g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Jul 2020 14:31:54 -0700
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>
Cc:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
        William Kucharski <william.kucharski@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] mm: Fix warning in move_normal_pmd()

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 1:54 PM Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org> wrote:
>
> Regarding the ADDR_AFTER_NEXT checks, shouldn't you check for:
>
>         if (ADDR_AFTER_NEXT(ALIGN(*old_addr + *len, PMD_SIZE), old))
>                 return;

No, there's even a comment to the effect.

Instead, that ADDR_AFTER_NEXT() aligns the next address _down_ to the
PMD boundary.

Because otherwise, what can happen is:

 - you're on an architecture that has a separate address space for users

 - you're the next-to-last VMA in that address space,

 - you're in the last PMD.

And now "ALIGN(*old_addr + *len, PMD_SIZE)" will wrap, and become 0,
and you think it's ok to move the whole PMD, because it's now smaller
than the start address of the next VMA.

It's _not_ ok, because you'd be moving that next-vma data too.

> and for the len calculation, I did not follow what you did, but I think you
> meant something like this? Does the following reduce to what you did? At
> least this is a bit more readable I think:
>
>         *len += (ALIGN(*new_addr + *len, PMD_SIZE) - (*new_addr + *len));

Yes, right you are.

I actually wrote that first (except I added a helper variable for that
"*new_addr + *len" thing), and then I decided it can be simplified.

And simplified it wrong ;)

> Also you did "len +=", it should be "*len +=" in this function.

That's indeed a plain stupid bug ;)

Naresh - don't test that version. The bugs Joel found just make the
math wrong, so it won't work.

The concept was solid, the implementation not so much ;)

                 Linus