linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: kmemleak: check boundary of objects allocated with physical address when scan

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:   Wed, 1 Jun 2022 18:24:34 +0800
From:   Patrick Wang <patrick.wang.shcn@...il.com>
To:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:     akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yee.lee@...iatek.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: kmemleak: check boundary of objects allocated with
 physical address when scan



On 2022/6/1 00:29, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 11:08:23PM +0800, Patrick Wang wrote:
>> @@ -1132,8 +1135,13 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmemleak_no_scan);
>>   void __ref kmemleak_alloc_phys(phys_addr_t phys, size_t size, int min_count,
>>   			       gfp_t gfp)
>>   {
>> -	if (PHYS_PFN(phys) >= min_low_pfn && PHYS_PFN(phys) < max_low_pfn)
>> -		kmemleak_alloc(__va(phys), size, min_count, gfp);
>> +	pr_debug("%s(0x%p, %zu, %d)\n", __func__, __va(phys), size, min_count);
> 
> I'd print just phys here since that's the function argument.

Will do.

> 
>> +	if (kmemleak_enabled && (unsigned long)__va(phys) >= PAGE_OFFSET &&
>> +	    !IS_ERR(__va(phys)))
>> +		/* create object with OBJECT_PHYS flag */
>> +		create_object((unsigned long)__va(phys), size, min_count,
>> +			      gfp, true);
> 
> Do we still need to check for __va(phys) >= PAGE_OFFSET? Also I don't
> think IS_ERR(__va(phys)) makes sense, we can't store an error in a
> physical address. The kmemleak_alloc_phys() function is only called on
> successful allocation, so shouldn't bother with error codes.

In this commit:
972fa3a7c17c(mm: kmemleak: alloc gray object for reserved
region with direct map)

The kmemleak_alloc_phys() function is called directly by passing
physical address from devicetree. So I'm concerned that could
__va() => __pa() convert always get the phys back? I thought
check for __va(phys) might help, but it probably dosen't work
and using IS_ERR is indeed inappropriate.

We might have to store phys in object and convert it via __va()
for normal use like:

#define object_pointer(obj)	\
	(obj->flags & OBJECT_PHYS ? (unsigned long)__va((void *)obj->pointer)	\
				: obj->pointer)

> 
>> @@ -1436,6 +1441,13 @@ static void kmemleak_scan(void)
>>   			dump_object_info(object);
>>   		}
>>   #endif
>> +
>> +		/* outside lowmem, make it black */
> 
> Maybe a bit more verbose:
> 
> 		/* ignore objects outside lowmem (paint them black) */

Will do.

> 
>> +		if (object->flags & OBJECT_PHYS)
>> +			if (PHYS_PFN(__pa((void *)object->pointer)) < min_low_pfn ||
>> +			    PHYS_PFN(__pa((void *)object->pointer)) >= max_low_pfn)
>> +				__paint_it(object, KMEMLEAK_BLACK);
> 
> I'd skip the checks if the object is OBJECT_NO_SCAN (side-effect of
> __paint_it()) so that the next scan won't have to go through the __pa()
> checks again. It's also probably more correct to check the upper object
> boundary). Something like:
> 
> 		if ((object->flags & OBJECT_PHYS) &&
> 		    !(object->flags & OBJECT_NO_SCAN)) {
> 			unsigned long phys = __pa((void *)object->pointer);
> 			if (PHYS_PFN(phys) < min_low_pfn ||
> 			    PHYS_PFN(phys + object->size) >= max_low_pfn)
> 				__paint_it(object, KMEMLEAK_BLACK);
> 		}

Right, much more thorough. Will do.

Thanks,
Patrick