linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc: Fix return value check for vb

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAGsJ_4xpJ2FtLRxJT1fORHXzEiajiUJ6q_Pz8pwjYmVOmnaP5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:09:42 +1300
From: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
To: 刘海龙(LaoLiu) <liuhailong@...o.com>
Cc: "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "urezki@...il.com" <urezki@...il.com>, 
	"hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>, "lstoakes@...il.com" <lstoakes@...il.com>, 
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, 
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/vmalloc: Fix return value check for vb_alloc

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 11:02 PM 刘海龙(LaoLiu) <liuhailong@...o.com> wrote:
>
> On 2024/2/28 17:34, Barry Song wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 9:51 PM 刘海龙(LaoLiu) <liuhailong@...o.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> If vm_map_ram(page, 0, 0) would cause panic by vmap_pages_range_noflush, so
> >> change IS_ERR to IS_ERR_OR_NULL to fix this.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Hailong.Liu <liuhailong@...o.com>
> >> ---
> >>  mm/vmalloc.c | 2 +-
> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> >> index d12a17fc0c17..109732006cf7 100644
> >> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> >> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> >> @@ -2387,7 +2387,7 @@ void *vm_map_ram(struct page **pages, unsigned int
> >> count, int node)
> >>
> >>         if (likely(count <= VMAP_MAX_ALLOC)) {
> >>                 mem = vb_alloc(size, GFP_KERNEL);
> >> -               if (IS_ERR(mem))
> >> +               if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(mem))
> >
> > it seems the only case for vb_alloc to return NULL is size = 0, isn't
> > it a bug of
> > caller?
> vb_alloc had already checked the size == 0, so it should be return NULL
> to caller or not panic here.
>
> In fact, we encounter z_erofs_lz4_decompress issue.
>
> [54032.383633][T25392]  vmap_pages_range_noflush+0x790/0x8f8
> [54032.383637][T25392]  vm_map_ram+0x1c8/0x10b0
> [54032.383642][T25392]  z_erofs_lz4_decompress+0x60/0x1e8
> [54032.383648][T25392]  z_erofs_decompress_pcluster+0x624/0x9fc
> [54032.383653][T25392]  z_erofs_decompress_kickoff+0x18c/0x224
> [54032.383658][T25392]  z_erofs_decompressqueue_endio+0x1a8/0x1e0
> [54032.383663][T25392]  bio_endio+0x188/0x47c
> [54032.383667][T25392]  clone_endio+0x1a0/0x550
> [54032.383674][T25392]  bio_endio+0x14c/0x47c
> [54032.383678][T25392]  verity_work.60258+0x7c/0x13c
> [54032.383682][T25392]  process_one_work+0x1b8/0xa98
> [54032.383687][T25392]  worker_thread+0x160/0x6c0
> [54032.383691][T25392]  kthread+0x15c/0x1d0
> [54032.383696][T25392]  ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
>
> z_erofs_lz4_decompress has checked the return value, so it's reasonable
> to return NULL if size == 0.

I agree. but there is no reason to activate a WARN_ON in vb_alloc as
obviously it doesn't like it. so fix it earlier.

I even feel z_erofs_lz4_decompress is a better place than vm_map_ram
according to your description. but at least vm_map_ram is better than
checking a vb_alloc's ret after it gives a parameter obviously hated and
causes complaints.

>
> Brs,
> Hailong.
> >
> >>                         return NULL;
> >>                 addr = (unsigned long)mem;
> >>         } else {
> >> --
> >> 2.34.1
> >

Thanks
Barry