linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH resend] mm/gup: fix try_grab_compound_head() race with split_huge

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]

Message-ID: <9041f85d-515d-576d-21a9-6f10b6e1279e@nvidia.com>
Date:   Sat, 12 Jun 2021 00:17:05 -1000
From:   John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:     Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH resend] mm/gup: fix try_grab_compound_head() race with
 split_huge_page()

On 6/11/21 3:49 PM, Jann Horn wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 12:36 AM Andrew Morton
> <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2021 18:15:45 +0200 Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com> wrote:
>>> +/* Equivalent to calling put_page() @refs times. */
>>> +static void put_page_refs(struct page *page, int refs)
>>> +{
>>> +     VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(page_ref_count(page) < refs, page);
>>
>> I don't think there's a need to nuke the whole kernel in this case.
>> Can we warn then simply leak the page?  That way we have a much better
>> chance of getting a good bug report.
> 
> Ah, yeah, I guess that makes sense. I had just copied this over from
> put_compound_head(), and figured it was fine to keep it as-is, but I
> guess changing it would be reasonable. I'm not quite sure what the
> best way to do that would be though.
> 
> I guess the check should go away in !DEBUG_VM builds?
> 
> Should I just explicitly put the check in an ifdef block? Like so:
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_VM
> if (VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_PAGE(...))
>    return;
> #endif
> 
> Or, since inline ifdeffery looks ugly, get rid of the explicit ifdef,

Agreed: VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_PAGE(), at least at the API level, seems like
the best thing to use here. However, as you point out below, it needs a
little something first.

> and change the !DEBUG_VM definition of VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_PAGE() as
> follows so that the branch is compiled away?
> 
> #define VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_PAGE(cond, page)  (BUILD_BUG_ON_INVALID(cond), false)
> 
> That would look kinda neat, but it would be different from the
> behavior of WARN_ON(), which still returns the original condition even
> in !BUG builds, so that could be confusing...
> 

The VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_PAGE() is not implemented exactly right
in the !CONFIG_DEBUG_VM case. IMHO it should follow the WARN*()
behavior, and return the original condition and keep going
in that case.

Then you could use it directly here.


thanks,

-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA