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: <YMifvD723USsnWRH@casper.infradead.org>
Date:   Tue, 15 Jun 2021 13:40:28 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc:     Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Youquan Song <youquan.song@...el.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Subject: Re: page refcount race between prep_compound_gigantic_page() and
 __page_cache_add_speculative()?

On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 01:03:53PM +0200, Jann Horn wrote:
> The messier path, as the original commit describes, is "gigantic" page
> allocation. In that case, we'll go through the following path (if we
> ignore CMA):
> 
>   alloc_fresh_huge_page():
>     alloc_gigantic_page()
>       alloc_contig_pages()
>         __alloc_contig_pages()
>           alloc_contig_range()
>             isolate_freepages_range()
>               split_map_pages()
>                 post_alloc_hook() [FOR EVERY PAGE]
>                   set_page_refcounted()
>                     set_page_count(page, 1)
>     prep_compound_gigantic_page()
>       set_page_count(p, 0) [FOR EVERY TAIL PAGE]
> 
> so all the tail pages are initially allocated with refcount 1 by the
> page allocator, and then we overwrite those refcounts with zeroes.
> 
> 
> Luckily, the only non-__init codepath that can get here is
> __nr_hugepages_store_common(), which is only invoked from privileged
> writes to sysfs/sysctls.

Argh.  What if we passed __GFP_COMP into alloc_contig_pages()?
The current callers of alloc_contig_range() do not pass __GFP_COMP,
so it's no behaviour change for them, and __GFP_COMP implies this
kind of behaviour.  I think that would imply _not_ calling
split_map_pages(), which implies not calling post_alloc_hook(),
which means we probably need to do a lot of the parts of
post_alloc_hook() in alloc_gigantic_page().  Yuck.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ