linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] mm: delete oversized WARN

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: <YajmawzehKqR+j0v@casper.infradead.org>
Date:   Thu, 2 Dec 2021 15:29:47 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Bixuan Cui <cuibixuan@...ux.alibaba.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
        w@....eu, keescook@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] mm: delete oversized WARN_ON() in kvmalloc() calls

On Thu, Dec 02, 2021 at 05:23:42PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> The problem is that this WARN_ON() is triggered by the users.

... or the problem is that you don't do a sanity check between the user
and the MM system.  I mean, that's what this conversation is about --
is it a bug to be asking for this much memory in the first place?

> At least in the RDMA world, users can provide huge sizes and they expect
> to get plain -ENOMEM and not dump stack, because it happens indirectly
> to them.
> 
> In our case, these two kvcalloc() generates WARN_ON().
> 
> 		umem_odp->pfn_list = kvcalloc(
> 			npfns, sizeof(*umem_odp->pfn_list), GFP_KERNEL);

Does it really make sense for the user to specify 2^31 PFNs in a single
call?  I mean, that's 8TB of memory.  Should RDMA put its own limit
in here, or should it rely on kvmalloc returning -ENOMEM?