[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+b6g7DNQTRo0VSFgPzAZF2vMJOcnijuLWeLxUtOWL1nrA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2021 20:27:57 +0200
From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
syzbot <syzbot+015dd7cdbbbc2c180c65@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
daniel.vetter@...el.com, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-security-module <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>,
m.szyprowski@...sung.com,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"Serge E. Hallyn" <serge@...lyn.com>,
syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
Tomasz Figa <tfiga@...omium.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] WARNING in unsafe_follow_pfn
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 8:11 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 07:20:12PM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > > > Plus users are going to be seeing this as well. According to the commit
> > > > message for 69bacee7f9ad ("mm: Add unsafe_follow_pfn") "Unfortunately
> > > > there's some users where this is not fixable (like v4l userptr of iomem
> > > > mappings)". It sort of seems crazy to dump this giant splat and then
> > > > tell users to ignore it forever because it can't be fixed... 0_0
> > >
> > > I think the discussion conclusion was that this interface should not
> > > be used by userspace anymore, it is obsolete by some new interface?
> > >
> > > It should be protected by some kconfig and the kconfig should be
> > > turned off for syzkaller runs.
> >
> > If this is not a kernel bug, then it must not use WARN_ON[_ONCE]. It
> > makes the kernel untestable for both automated systems and humans:
>
> It is a kernel security bug triggerable by userspace.
>
> > And if it's a kernel bug reachable from user-space, then I think this
> > code should be removed entirely, not just on all testing systems. Or
> > otherwise if we are not removing it for some reason, then it needs to
> > be fixed.
>
> Legacy embedded systems apparently require it.
>
> It should be blocked by a kconfig. Distributions and syzkaller runs
> should not enable that kconfig. What else can we do for insane uapi?
I see. Adding a config gives at least some path forward, so if there
are no better options, that's do that. If we default it to 'n' and add
a bold warning in the description, it may work.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists