linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv3] mm: fix incorrect vbq reference in purge_fragmented

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: Fri, 31 May 2024 18:44:25 +0800
From: Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>
To: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
Cc: "zhaoyang . huang" <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>,
	hailong liu <hailong.liu@...o.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3] mm: fix incorrect vbq reference in purge_fragmented_block

On Fri, 31. May 10:04, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 11:05:20AM +0800, zhaoyang.huang wrote:
> > From: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>
> >
> > vmalloc area runs out in our ARM64 system during an erofs test as
> > vm_map_ram failed[1]. By following the debug log, we find that
> > vm_map_ram()->vb_alloc() will allocate new vb->va which corresponding
> > to 4MB vmalloc area as list_for_each_entry_rcu returns immediately
> > when vbq->free->next points to vbq->free. That is to say, 65536 times
> > of page fault after the list's broken will run out of the whole
> > vmalloc area. This should be introduced by one vbq->free->next point to
> > vbq->free which makes list_for_each_entry_rcu can not iterate the list
> > and find the BUG.
> >
> > [1]
> > PID: 1        TASK: ffffff80802b4e00  CPU: 6    COMMAND: "init"
> >  #0 [ffffffc08006afe0] __switch_to at ffffffc08111d5cc
> >  #1 [ffffffc08006b040] __schedule at ffffffc08111dde0
> >  #2 [ffffffc08006b0a0] schedule at ffffffc08111e294
> >  #3 [ffffffc08006b0d0] schedule_preempt_disabled at ffffffc08111e3f0
> >  #4 [ffffffc08006b140] __mutex_lock at ffffffc08112068c
> >  #5 [ffffffc08006b180] __mutex_lock_slowpath at ffffffc08111f8f8
> >  #6 [ffffffc08006b1a0] mutex_lock at ffffffc08111f834
> >  #7 [ffffffc08006b1d0] reclaim_and_purge_vmap_areas at ffffffc0803ebc3c
> >  #8 [ffffffc08006b290] alloc_vmap_area at ffffffc0803e83fc
> >  #9 [ffffffc08006b300] vm_map_ram at ffffffc0803e78c0
> >
> > Fixes: fc1e0d980037 ("mm/vmalloc: prevent stale TLBs in fully utilized blocks")
> >
> > Suggested-by: Hailong.Liu <hailong.liu@...o.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@...soc.com>
> >
> Is a problem related to run out of vmalloc space _only_ or it is a problem
> with broken list? From the commit message it is hard to follow the reason.
>
> Could you please post a full trace or panic?

What they proposed looks correct IIUC

--- l/mm/vmalloc.c
+++ v/mm/vmalloc.c
@@ -2067,7 +2067,7 @@ static void *new_vmap_block(unsigned int
 		return ERR_PTR(err);
 	}
 
-	vbq = raw_cpu_ptr(&vmap_block_queue);
+	vbq = container_of(xa, struct vmap_block_queue, vmap_blocks);
 	spin_lock(&vbq->lock);
 	list_add_tail_rcu(&vb->free_list, &vbq->free);
 	spin_unlock(&vbq->lock);