linux-kernel - Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] hugetlb: fix uninitialized subpool pointer

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]

Date:   Wed, 24 Feb 2021 12:36:30 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
Cc:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] hugetlb: fix uninitialized subpool pointer

On Wed 24-02-21 19:10:42, Muchun Song wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 5:43 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue 23-02-21 13:55:44, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > > Gerald Schaefer reported a panic on s390 in hugepage_subpool_put_pages()
> > > with linux-next 5.12.0-20210222.
> > > Call trace:
> > >   hugepage_subpool_put_pages.part.0+0x2c/0x138
> > >   __free_huge_page+0xce/0x310
> > >   alloc_pool_huge_page+0x102/0x120
> > >   set_max_huge_pages+0x13e/0x350
> > >   hugetlb_sysctl_handler_common+0xd8/0x110
> > >   hugetlb_sysctl_handler+0x48/0x58
> > >   proc_sys_call_handler+0x138/0x238
> > >   new_sync_write+0x10e/0x198
> > >   vfs_write.part.0+0x12c/0x238
> > >   ksys_write+0x68/0xf8
> > >   do_syscall+0x82/0xd0
> > >   __do_syscall+0xb4/0xc8
> > >   system_call+0x72/0x98
> > >
> > > This is a result of the change which moved the hugetlb page subpool
> > > pointer from page->private to page[1]->private.  When new pages are
> > > allocated from the buddy allocator, the private field of the head
> > > page will be cleared, but the private field of subpages is not modified.
> > > Therefore, old values may remain.
> >
> > Very interesting. I have expected that the page->private would be in a
> > reasonable state when allocated. On the other hand hugetlb doesn't do
> > __GFP_COMP so tail pages are not initialized by the allocator.
> 
> It seems that the buddy allocator does not initialize the private field
> of the tail page even when we specify __GFP_COMP.

Yes it doesn't. What I meant to say is that even if it did a lack of
__GFP_COMP would result in not doing so. I do not remember why hugetlb
doesn't use __GFP_COMP but I believe this was never the case.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs