linux-kernel - Re: [syzbot] [mm?] WARNING in __folio_rmap_sanity

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]

Message-ID: <58e2fe0f-b198-4248-9ead-fb5bf4f3edee@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2024 22:48:56 +0800
From: "Yin, Fengwei" <fengwei.yin@...el.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>,
	syzbot <syzbot+50ef73537bbc393a25bb@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
	<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>, Matthew Wilcox
	<willy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [mm?] WARNING in __folio_rmap_sanity_checks



On 1/5/2024 4:56 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>> If I am not wrong, that triggers:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(folio_test_large(folio) &&
>>>>>>             !folio_test_large_rmappable(folio), folio);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So we are trying to rmap a large folio that did not go through
>>>>>> folio_prep_large_rmappable().
>>
>> Would someone mind explaining the rules to me for this? As far as I 
>> can see,
>> folio_prep_large_rmappable() just inits the _deferred_list and sets a 
>> flag so we
>> remember to deinit the list on destruction. Why can't we just init 
>> that list for
>> all folios order-2 or greater? Then everything is rmappable?
> 
> I think we much rather want to look into moving all mapcount-related 
> stuff into folio_prep_large_rmappable(). It doesn't make any sense to 
> initialize that for any compound pages, especially the ones that will 
> never get mapped to user space.
> 
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> net/packet/af_packet.c calls vm_insert_page() on some pages/folios 
>>>>>> stoed
>>>>>> in the "struct packet_ring_buffer". No idea where that comes from, 
>>>>>> but I
>>>>>> suspect it's simply some compound allocation.
>>>>> Looks like:
>>>>>     alloc_pg_vec
>>>>>       alloc_one_pg_vec_page
>>>>>            gfp_t gfp_flags = GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_COMP |
>>>>>                              __GFP_ZERO | __GFP_NOWARN | 
>>>>> __GFP_NORETRY;
>>>>>
>>>>>            buffer = (char *) __get_free_pages(gfp_flags, order);
>>>>> So you are right here... :).
>>>>
>>>> Hm, but I wonder if this something that's supposed to work or is 
>>>> this one of
>>>> the cases where we should actually use a VM_PFN mapping?
>>>>
>>>> It's not a pagecache(file/shmem) page after all.
>>>>
>>>> We could relax that check and document why we expect something that 
>>>> is not
>>>> marked rmappable. But it fells wrong. I suspect this should be a 
>>>> VM_PFNMAP
>>>> instead (like recent udmabuf changes).
>>>
>>> VM_PFNMAP looks correct.
>>
>> And why is making the folio rmappable and mapping it the normal way 
>> not the
>> right solution here? Because the folio could be order-1? Or something 
>> more profound?
>>
> 
> Think about it: we are adding/removing a page from rmap handling that 
> can *never* be looked up using the rmap because there is no rmap for 
> these pages, and folio->index is just completely unexpressive. 
> VM_MIXEDMAP doesn't have any linearity constraints.
> 
> Logically, it doesn't make any sense to involve rmap code although it 
> currently might work. validate_page_before_insert() blocks off most 
> pages where the order-0 mapcount would be used for other purposes and 
> everything would blow up.
> 
> Looking at vm_insert_page(), this interface is only for pages the caller 
> allocated. Maybe we should just not do any rmap accounting when 
> mapping/unmapping these pages: not involve any rmap code, including 
> mapcounts?
This is my understanding.

> 
> vm_normal_page() works on these mappings, so we'd also have to skip rmap 
> code when unmapping these pages etc. Maybe that's the whole reason we 
> have the rmap handling here: to not special-case the unmap path.

vm_insert_page() will set VM_MIXEDMAP and vm_normal_page() will skip
the page if CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL is enabled (it's enabled for
x86).  So the unmap path will skip these kind of folios?


Regards
Yin, Fengwei

> 
> Alternatively, we can:
> 
> (1) Require the caller to make sure large folios are rmappable. We
>      already require allocations to be compound. Should be easy to add.
> (2) Allow non-rmappable folios in rmap code just for mapcount tracking.
>      Confusing but possible.
> 
>>>
>>> I do have another question: why do we just check the large folio
>>> rmappable? Does that mean order0 folio is always rmappable?
>>>
> 
> We didn't really have a check for that I believe. We simply reject all 
> pages in vm_insert_page() that are problematic because the pagecount is 
> overloaded.
> 
>>> I ask this because vm_insert_pages() is called in net/ipv4/tcp.c
>>> and drivers call vm_insert_page. I suppose they all need be VM_PFNMAP.
> 
> Right, similar problem.
>