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]

Date:   Thu, 23 Sep 2021 19:42:55 +0200
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To:     Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
Cc:     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 22.09.21 12:41, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> 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?


Sure, I'll give it a spin tomorrow! Thanks!


-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb