[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e722a4bb-96fb-db3d-6182-63eaed2d9066@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 03:08:21 +0100 (CET)
From: Jesper Juhl <jesperjuhl76@...il.com>
To: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@...aro.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlb: check for undefined shift on 32 bit
architectures
On Wed, 15 Feb 2023, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> Users can specify the hugetlb page size in the mmap, shmget and
> memfd_create system calls. This is done by using 6 bits within the
> flags argument to encode the base-2 logarithm of the desired page size.
> The routine hstate_sizelog() uses the log2 value to find the
> corresponding hugetlb hstate structure. Converting the log2 value
> (page_size_log) to potential hugetlb page size is the simple statement:
>
> 1UL << page_size_log
>
> Because only 6 bits are used for page_size_log, the left shift can not
> be greater than 63. This is fine on 64 bit architectures where a long
> is 64 bits. However, if a value greater than 31 is passed on a 32 bit
> architecture (where long is 32 bits) the shift will result in undefined
> behavior. This was generally not an issue as the result of the
> undefined shift had to exactly match hugetlb page size to proceed.
>
> Recent improvements in runtime checking have resulted in this undefined
> behavior throwing errors such as reported below.
>
> Fix by comparing page_size_log to BITS_PER_LONG before doing shift.
>
> Reported-by: Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CA+G9fYuei_Tr-vN9GS7SfFyU1y9hNysnf=PB7kT0=yv4MiPgVg@mail.gmail.com/
> Fixes: 42d7395feb56 ("mm: support more pagesizes for MAP_HUGETLB/SHM_HUGETLB")
> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Jesper Juhl <jesperjuhl76@...il.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists