linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: kmalloc_index: remove case when size is more than 32MB

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]

Date:   Mon, 10 May 2021 22:58:57 +0900
From:   Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, cl@...ux.com,
        penberg@...nel.org, rientjes@...gle.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: kmalloc_index: remove case when size is more than
 32MB

On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 12:09:55PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 5/9/21 7:33 AM, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> > On Sun, May 09, 2021 at 12:19:40AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >> On Sun, May 09, 2021 at 07:13:28AM +0900, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:
> >> > the return value of kmalloc_index is used as index of kmalloc_caches,
> >>
> >> it doesn't matter.  every few weeks somebody posts a patch to "optimise"
> >> kmalloc_index, failing to appreciate that it's only ever run at compile
> >> time because it's all under __builtin_constant_p().
> > 
> > Oh thanks, I didn't know about __builtin_constant_p.
> > 
> > But I was not optimizing kmalloc_index. isn't it confusing that
> > kmalloc_caches alllows maximum size of 32MB, and kmalloc_index allows
> > maximum size of 64MB?
> > 
> > and even if the code I removed is never reached because 64MB is always
> > bigger than KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE, it will cause an error if reached.
> 
> KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE depends on KMALLOC_SHIFT_HIGH
> size of kmalloc_caches array depends on KMALLOC_SHIFT_HIGH
> 
> So I don't an easy way how it could become reachable while causing the index to
> overflow - if someone increased KMALLOC_SHIFT_HIGH from 25 to 26, all should be
> fine, AFAICS.
> 
> The problem would be if someone increased it to 27, then we might suddenly get a
> BUG() in kmalloc_index(). We should probably replace that BUG() with
> BUILD_BUG_ON(1) to catch that at compile time. Hopefully no supported compiler
> will break because it's not able to do the proper compile-time evaluation - but
> if it does, at least we would know.
> 
> So I would accept the patch if it also changed BUG() to e.g. BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(1,
> "unexpected size in kmalloc_index()");
> and expanded the function's comment that this is always compile-time evaluated
> and thus no attempts at "optimizing" the code should be made.
> 

Thank you so much reviewing and replying to my patch.
plecase check if I understood well.

Okay, I'll do that work. then the following patch will:
	- remove case when size is more than 32MB
	- change "BUG to BUILD_BUG_ON to let compiler know when the size is not supported"
	- add comment that there's no need to optimize it

is it what you mean. right?

and I have a question. in the lin 751 of mm/slab_common.c,
thre's struct kmalloc_info_struct kmalloc_info. and it initializes kmalloc info
up to 64MB, which is currently not supported. should I change it too? in a separate patch?