linux-kernel - Re: [next] arm64: boot failed

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, 9 Jun 2022 22:16:47 +0000
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To:     Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>
Cc:     Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
        Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        regressions@...ts.linux.dev, lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Raghuram Thammiraju <raghuram.thammiraju@....com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Vasily Averin <vvs@...nvz.org>,
        Qian Cai <quic_qiancai@...cinc.com>
Subject: Re: [next] arm64: boot failed - next-20220606

On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 03:05:08PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 07:12:21PM +0000, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 10:56:09AM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 10:47:35AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jun 9, 2022 at 10:27 AM Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > > > +struct mem_cgroup *mem_cgroup_from_obj(void *p)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +       struct folio *folio;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +       if (mem_cgroup_disabled())
> > > > > +               return NULL;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +       if (unlikely(is_vmalloc_addr(p)))
> > > > > +               folio = page_folio(vmalloc_to_page(p));
> > > > 
> > > > Do we need to check for NULL from vmalloc_to_page(p)?
> > > 
> > > Idk, can it realistically return NULL after is_vmalloc_addr() returned true?
> > > I would be surprised, but maybe I'm missing something.
> > 
> > is_vmalloc_addr() is simply checking the range and some buggy caller can
> > provide an unmapped address within the range. Maybe VM_BUG_ON() should
> > be good enough (though no strong opinion either way).
> 
> No strong opinion here as well, but I think we don't have to be too defensive
> here. Actually we'll know anyway, unlikely a null pointer dereference will be
> unnoticed. And it's not different to calling mem_cgroup_from_obj() with some
> random invalid address now.
> 

Sounds good. You can add my ack when you send the official version of
the patch.