linux-kernel - Re: Endless calls to xas_split_alloc() due to corrupted xarray entry

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: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 21:58:55 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Gavin Shan <gshan@...hat.com>, Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
 Zhenyu Zhang <zhenyzha@...hat.com>, Linux XFS <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
 Linux Filesystems Development <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Shaoqin Huang <shahuang@...hat.com>, Chandan Babu R
 <chandan.babu@...cle.com>, "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Endless calls to xas_split_alloc() due to corrupted xarray entry

On 19.06.24 17:48, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 at 07:31, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>>
>> Actually, it's 11.  We can't split an order-12 folio because we'd have
>> to allocate two levels of radix tree, and I decided that was too much
>> work.  Also, I didn't know that ARM used order-13 PMD size at the time.
>>
>> I think this is the best fix (modulo s/12/11/).
> 
> Can we use some more descriptive thing than the magic constant 11 that
> is clearly very subtle.
> 
> Is it "XA_CHUNK_SHIFT * 2 - 1"

That's my best guess as well :)

> 
> IOW, something like
> 
>     #define MAX_XAS_ORDER (XA_CHUNK_SHIFT * 2 - 1)
>     #define MAX_PAGECACHE_ORDER min(HPAGE_PMD_ORDER,12)
> 
> except for the non-TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE case where it currently does
> 
>    #define MAX_PAGECACHE_ORDER    8
> 
> and I assume that "8" is just "random round value, smaller than 11"?

Yes, that matches my understanding.

Maybe to be safe for !THP as well, something ike:

+++ b/include/linux/pagemap.h
@@ -354,11 +354,18 @@ static inline void mapping_set_gfp_mask(struct address_space *m, gfp_t mask)
   * a good order (that's 1MB if you're using 4kB pages)
   */
  #ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
-#define MAX_PAGECACHE_ORDER	HPAGE_PMD_ORDER
+#define WANTED_MAX_PAGECACHE_ORDER	HPAGE_PMD_ORDER
  #else
-#define MAX_PAGECACHE_ORDER	8
+#define WANTED_MAX_PAGECACHE_ORDER	8
  #endif

+/*
+ * xas_split_alloc() does not support arbitrary orders yet. This implies no
+ * 512MB THP on arm64 with 64k.
+ */
+#define MAX_XAS_ORDER		(XA_CHUNK_SHIFT * 2 - 1)
+#define MAX_PAGECACHE_ORDER	min(MAX_XAS_ORDER, WANTED_MAX_PAGECACHE_ORDER)
+
  /**
   * mapping_set_large_folios() - Indicate the file supports large folios.
   * @mapping: The file.
-- 
2.45.2

@Gavin, do you have capacity to test+prepare an official patch? Also,
please double-check whether shmem must be fenced as well (very likely).

This implies no PMD-sized THPs in the pagecache/shmem on arm64 with 64k.
Could be worse, because as Willy said, they are rather rare and extremely
unpredictable.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb