linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] linux-next panic in hugepage_subpool_put

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 23 Feb 2021 15:58:06 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Cc:     Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] linux-next panic in hugepage_subpool_put_pages()

On Tue, 23 Feb 2021 10:06:12 -0800 Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com> wrote:

> On 2/23/21 6:57 AM, Gerald Schaefer wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > LTP triggered a panic on s390 in hugepage_subpool_put_pages() with
> > linux-next 5.12.0-20210222, see below.
> > 
> > It crashes on the spin_lock(&spool->lock) at the beginning, because the
> > passed-in *spool points to 0000004e00000000, which is not addressable
> > memory. It rather looks like some flags and not a proper address. I suspect
> > some relation to the recent rework in that area, e.g. commit f1280272ae4d
> > ("hugetlb: use page.private for hugetlb specific page flags").
> > 
> > __free_huge_page() calls hugepage_subpool_put_pages() and takes *spool from
> > hugetlb_page_subpool(page), which was changed by that commit to use
> > page[1]->private now.
> > 
> 
> Thanks Gerald,
> 
> Yes, I believe f1280272ae4d is the root cause of this issue.  In that
> commit, the subpool pointer was moved from page->private of the head
> page to page->private of the first subpage.  The page allocator will
> initialize (zero) the private field of the head page, but not that of
> subpages.  So, that bad subpool pointer is likely an old page->private
> value for the page.
> 
> That strange call path from set_max_huge_pages to __free_huge_page is
> actually how the code puts newly allocated pages on it's interfal free
> list.  
> 
> I will do a bit more verification and put together a patch (it should
> be simple).

There's also Michel's documentation request:
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20210127102645.GH827@dhcp22.suse.cz