linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] mm/vmalloc: fix exact allocations with an alignment

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: <20210922104141.GA27011@pc638.lan>
Date:   Wed, 22 Sep 2021 12:41:41 +0200
From:   Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ping Fang <pifang@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] mm/vmalloc: fix exact allocations with an alignment >
 1

On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 10:34:55AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > No, that's leaking implementation details to the caller. And no, increasing
> > > the range and eventually allocating something bigger (e.g., placing a huge
> > > page where it might not have been possible) is not acceptable for KASAN.
> > > 
> > > If you're terribly unhappy with this patch,
> > Sorry to say but it simple does not make sense.
> > 
> 
> Let's agree to disagree.
> 
> find_vmap_lowest_match() is imprecise now and that's an issue for exact
> allocations. We can either make it fully precise again (eventually degrading
> allocation performance) or just special-case exact allocations to fix the
> regression.
> 
> I decided to go the easy path and do the latter; I do agree that making
> find_vmap_lowest_match() fully precise again might be preferred -- we could
> have other allocations failing right now although there are still suitable
> holes.
> 
> I briefly thought about performing the search in find_vmap_lowest_match()
> twice. First, start the search without an extended range, and fallback to
> the extended range if that search fails. Unfortunately, I think that still
> won't make the function completely precise due to the way we might miss
> searching some suitable subtrees.
> 
> > > 
> > > please suggest something reasonable to fix exact allocations:
> > > a) Fixes the KASAN use case.
> > > b) Allows for automatic placement of huge pages for exact allocations.
> > > c) Doesn't leak implementation details into the caller.
> > > 
> > I am looking at it.
> 
I am testing this:

<snip>
diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
index dcf23d16a308..cdf3bda6313d 100644
--- a/mm/vmalloc.c
+++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
@@ -1161,18 +1161,14 @@ find_vmap_lowest_match(unsigned long size,
 {
 	struct vmap_area *va;
 	struct rb_node *node;
-	unsigned long length;
 
 	/* Start from the root. */
 	node = free_vmap_area_root.rb_node;
 
-	/* Adjust the search size for alignment overhead. */
-	length = size + align - 1;
-
 	while (node) {
 		va = rb_entry(node, struct vmap_area, rb_node);
 
-		if (get_subtree_max_size(node->rb_left) >= length &&
+		if (get_subtree_max_size(node->rb_left) >= size &&
 				vstart < va->va_start) {
 			node = node->rb_left;
 		} else {
@@ -1182,9 +1178,9 @@ find_vmap_lowest_match(unsigned long size,
 			/*
 			 * Does not make sense to go deeper towards the right
 			 * sub-tree if it does not have a free block that is
-			 * equal or bigger to the requested search length.
+			 * equal or bigger to the requested search size.
 			 */
-			if (get_subtree_max_size(node->rb_right) >= length) {
+			if (get_subtree_max_size(node->rb_right) >= size) {
 				node = node->rb_right;
 				continue;
 			}
@@ -1192,16 +1188,30 @@ find_vmap_lowest_match(unsigned long size,
 			/*
 			 * OK. We roll back and find the first right sub-tree,
 			 * that will satisfy the search criteria. It can happen
-			 * only once due to "vstart" restriction.
+			 * due to "vstart" restriction or an alignment overhead.
 			 */
 			while ((node = rb_parent(node))) {
 				va = rb_entry(node, struct vmap_area, rb_node);
 				if (is_within_this_va(va, size, align, vstart))
 					return va;
 
-				if (get_subtree_max_size(node->rb_right) >= length &&
+				if (get_subtree_max_size(node->rb_right) >= size &&
 						vstart <= va->va_start) {
+					/*
+					 * Shift the vstart forward, so we do not loop over same
+					 * sub-tree force and back. The aim is to continue tree
+					 * scanning toward higher addresses cutting off previous
+					 * ones.
+					 *
+					 * Please note we update vstart with parent's start address
+					 * adding "1" because we do not want to enter same sub-tree
+					 * one more time after it has already been inspected and no
+					 * suitable free block found there.
+					 */
+					vstart = va->va_start + 1;
 					node = node->rb_right;
+
+					/* Scan a sub-tree rooted at "node". */
 					break;
 				}
 			}
<snip>

so it handles any alignment and is accurate when it comes to searching the most
lowest free block when user wants to allocate with a special alignment value.

Could you please help and test the KASAN use case?

Thanks!

--
Vlad Rezki