linux-kernel - Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] mm: hugetlb: fix a race between memory-failure/soft_offline and gather_surplus

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: <YH/lrlmkEb5b8LCo@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Wed, 21 Apr 2021 10:43:26 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To:     Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
Cc:     Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH] mm: hugetlb: fix a race between
 memory-failure/soft_offline and gather_surplus_pages

On Wed 21-04-21 10:21:03, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 04:15:00PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> > > The hwpoison side of this looks really suspicious to me. It shouldn't
> > > really touch the reference count of hugetlb pages without being very
> > > careful (and having hugetlb_lock held). What would happen if the
> > > reference count was increased after the page has been enqueed into the
> > > pool? This can just blow up later.
> > 
> > If the page has been enqueued into the pool, then the page can be
> > allocated to other users. The page reference count will be reset to
> > 1 in the dequeue_huge_page_node_exact(). Then memory-failure
> > will free the page because of put_page(). This is wrong. Because
> > there is another user.
> 
> Note that dequeue_huge_page_node_exact() will not hand over any pages
> which are poisoned, so in this case it will not be allocated.

I have to say I have missed the HWPoison check so the this particular
scenario is not possible indeed.

> But it is true that we might need hugetlb lock, this needs some more
> thought.

yes, nobody should be touching to the reference count of hugetlb pool
pages out of the hugetlb proper.

> I will have a look. 

Thanks!
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs