linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: validate buddy before check its migratetype.

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: <63234E12-AF64-4D85-A2BF-8A4EF5359F91@nvidia.com>
Date:   Wed, 30 Mar 2022 19:48:58 -0400
From:   Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: validate buddy before check its migratetype.

On 30 Mar 2022, at 19:03, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 3:12 PM Zi Yan <zi.yan@...t.com> wrote:
>>
>> Fixes: 1dd214b8f21c ("mm: page_alloc: avoid merging non-fallbackable pageblocks with others")
>
> Oh, btw - should this perhaps be backported further back than that
> alleged "fixes" commit?
>
> It does look like maybe the problem potentially existed before too,
> and was just much harder to trigger.
>
> That said, google doesn't find any other reports that look like
> Steven's oops, so maybe it really never happened and backporting isn't
> called for.
>
> Or possibly my google-fu is just bad.
>

There might not be any issue with the original code because this bug
could only be triggered when CONFIG_FLATMEM and CONFIG_MEMORY_ISOLATION
are both set, which never happens, since CONFIG_MEMORY_ISOLATION
depends on CONFIG_SPARSEMEM.

By checking Steven's boot log, it should be PFN 0x21ee00 that triggers
the bug, since the physical memory range ends at PFN 0x21edff.
PFN 0x21ee00 is 2MB aligned instead of MAX_ORDER-1 (4MB) aligned.
The original code assumes all physical memory ranges are at least
MAX_ORDER-1 aligned, which is true when CONFIG_SPARSEMEM is set
(CONFIG_MEMORY_ISOLATION depends on it), since CONFIG_SPARSEMEM
allocates pageblock_flags array (the NULL-deferenced bitmap points
to) at section size granularity (128MB > 4MB). However, CONFIG_FLATMEM
does not do this. It allocates pageblock_flags array at the exact size
of the physical memory. So checking 0x21ee00 will not cause NULL
dereferencing when CONFIG_MEMORY_ISOLATION is set and the original
if statement can be true.

Now I am wondering if the page_is_buddy() check is correct for
CONFIG_FLATMEM. Is mem_map allocation aligned to MAX_ORDER-1
or just the present physical memory range? Is PageBuddy(0x21ee00)
accessing some random memory location?

--
Best Regards,
Yan, Zi

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (855 bytes)