linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 2/2] kread: avoid duplicates

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:   Sun, 16 Apr 2023 14:50:01 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, david@...hat.com,
        patches@...ts.linux.dev, linux-modules@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pmladek@...e.com,
        petr.pavlu@...e.com, prarit@...hat.com,
        torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, rafael@...nel.org,
        christophe.leroy@...roup.eu, tglx@...utronix.de,
        peterz@...radead.org, song@...nel.org, rppt@...nel.org,
        dave@...olabs.net, willy@...radead.org, vbabka@...e.cz,
        mhocko@...e.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
        colin.i.king@...il.com, jim.cromie@...il.com,
        catalin.marinas@....com, jbaron@...mai.com,
        rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] kread: avoid duplicates

On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 11:41:28PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 11:04:12PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 10:28:40PM -0700, Luis Chamberlain wrote:
> > > With this we run into 0 wasted virtual memory bytes.
> > 
> > Avoid what duplicates?
> 
> David Hildenbrand had reported that with over 400 CPUs vmap space
> runs out and it seems it was related to module loading. I took a
> look and confirmed it. Module loading ends up requiring in the
> worst case 3 vmalloc allocations, so typically at least twice
> the size of the module size and in the worst case just add
> the decompressed module size:
> 
> a) initial kernel_read*() call
> b) optional module decompression
> c) the actual module data copy we will keep
> 
> Duplicate module requests that come from userspace end up being thrown
> in the trash bin, as only one module will be allocated.  Although there
> are checks for a module prior to requesting a module udev still doesn't
> do the best of a job to avoid that and so we end up with tons of
> duplicate module requests. We're talking about gigabytes of vmalloc
> bytes just lost because of this for large systems and megabytes for
> average systems. So for example with just 255 CPUs we can loose about
> 13.58 GiB, and for 8 CPUs about 226.53 MiB.

How does the memory get "lost"?  Shouldn't it be properly freed when the
duplicate module load fails?

thanks,

greg k-h