[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221206120417.225uxtlg255bzph4@quack3>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2022 13:04:17 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Ye Bin <yebin@...weicloud.com>
Cc: tytso@....edu, adilger.kernel@...ger.ca,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
jack@...e.cz, Ye Bin <yebin10@...wei.com>,
syzbot+4d99a966fd74bdeeec36@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 1/6] ext4: fix WARNING in ext4_expand_extra_isize_ea
On Tue 06-12-22 09:58:01, Ye Bin wrote:
> From: Ye Bin <yebin10@...wei.com>
>
> Syzbot found the following issue:
> ------------[ cut here ]------------
> WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 3631 at mm/page_alloc.c:5534 __alloc_pages+0x30a/0x560 mm/page_alloc.c:5534
> Modules linked in:
> CPU: 1 PID: 3631 Comm: syz-executor261 Not tainted 6.1.0-rc6-syzkaller-00308-g644e9524388a #0
> Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 10/26/2022
> RIP: 0010:__alloc_pages+0x30a/0x560 mm/page_alloc.c:5534
> RSP: 0018:ffffc90003ccf080 EFLAGS: 00010246
> RAX: ffffc90003ccf0e0 RBX: 000000000000000c RCX: 0000000000000000
> RDX: 0000000000000028 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: ffffc90003ccf108
> RBP: ffffc90003ccf198 R08: dffffc0000000000 R09: ffffc90003ccf0e0
> R10: fffff52000799e21 R11: 1ffff92000799e1c R12: 0000000000040c40
> R13: 1ffff92000799e18 R14: dffffc0000000000 R15: 1ffff92000799e14
> FS: 0000555555c10300(0000) GS:ffff8880b9900000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> CR2: 00007ffc36f70000 CR3: 00000000744ad000 CR4: 00000000003506e0
> DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> Call Trace:
> <TASK>
> __alloc_pages_node include/linux/gfp.h:223 [inline]
> alloc_pages_node include/linux/gfp.h:246 [inline]
> __kmalloc_large_node+0x8a/0x1a0 mm/slab_common.c:1096
> __do_kmalloc_node mm/slab_common.c:943 [inline]
> __kmalloc+0xfe/0x1a0 mm/slab_common.c:968
> kmalloc include/linux/slab.h:558 [inline]
> ext4_xattr_move_to_block fs/ext4/xattr.c:2558 [inline]
> ext4_xattr_make_inode_space fs/ext4/xattr.c:2673 [inline]
> ext4_expand_extra_isize_ea+0xe3f/0x1cd0 fs/ext4/xattr.c:2765
> __ext4_expand_extra_isize+0x2b8/0x3f0 fs/ext4/inode.c:5857
> ext4_try_to_expand_extra_isize fs/ext4/inode.c:5900 [inline]
> __ext4_mark_inode_dirty+0x51a/0x670 fs/ext4/inode.c:5978
> ext4_inline_data_truncate+0x548/0xd00 fs/ext4/inline.c:2021
> ext4_truncate+0x341/0xeb0 fs/ext4/inode.c:4221
> ext4_process_orphan+0x1aa/0x2d0 fs/ext4/orphan.c:339
> ext4_orphan_cleanup+0xb60/0x1340 fs/ext4/orphan.c:474
> __ext4_fill_super fs/ext4/super.c:5515 [inline]
> ext4_fill_super+0x80ed/0x8610 fs/ext4/super.c:5643
> get_tree_bdev+0x400/0x620 fs/super.c:1324
> vfs_get_tree+0x88/0x270 fs/super.c:1531
> do_new_mount+0x289/0xad0 fs/namespace.c:3040
> do_mount fs/namespace.c:3383 [inline]
> __do_sys_mount fs/namespace.c:3591 [inline]
> __se_sys_mount+0x2d3/0x3c0 fs/namespace.c:3568
> do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline]
> do_syscall_64+0x3d/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80
> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
> </TASK>
>
> Reason is allocate 16M memory by kmalloc, but MAX_ORDER is 11, kmalloc
> can allocate maxium size memory is 4M.
> XATTR_SIZE_MAX is currently 64k, but EXT4_XATTR_SIZE_MAX is '(1 << 24)',
> so 'ext4_xattr_check_entries()' regards this length as legal. Then trigger
> warning in 'ext4_xattr_move_to_block()'.
> To solve above issue, according to Jan Kara's suggestion use kvmalloc()
> to allocate memory in ext4_xattr_move_to_block().
>
> Reported-by: syzbot+4d99a966fd74bdeeec36@...kaller.appspotmail.com
> Fixes: 54dd0e0a1b25 ("ext4: add extra checks to ext4_xattr_block_get()")
> Signed-off-by: Ye Bin <yebin10@...wei.com>
The changelog speak about kvmalloc() while your patch changes
EXT4_XATTR_SIZE_MAX. This needs to be fixed. If Ted is find with this
change, I have no problem with it either but I remember there were some
discussions about what EXT4_XATTR_SIZE_MAX should be when ea_inode feature
has been developed. Ted might remember.
Also the change from kmalloc() to kvmalloc() is a desirable one anyway. It
is not always easy to find physically contiguous 64k of memory so
kvmalloc() makes the allocation much more likely to succeed.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists