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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 30 Mar 2022 20:10:20 -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 19:48, Zi Yan wrote:

> 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?

OK. mem_map seems to be MAX_ORDER-1 aligned, so there is no
problem with PageBuddy(0x21ee00).



--
Best Regards,
Yan, Zi

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