[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZrXkVhEg1B0yF5_Q@pc636>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2024 11:41:42 +0200
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>, Hailong Liu <hailong.liu@...o.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Tangquan Zheng <zhengtangquan@...o.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v1] mm/vmalloc: fix page mapping if
vm_area_alloc_pages() with high order fallback to order 0
On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 11:33:06AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 09-08-24 09:05:05, Barry Song wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 12:20 AM Hailong Liu <hailong.liu@...o.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The __vmap_pages_range_noflush() assumes its argument pages** contains
> > > pages with the same page shift. However, since commit e9c3cda4d86e
> > > ("mm, vmalloc: fix high order __GFP_NOFAIL allocations"), if gfp_flags
> > > includes __GFP_NOFAIL with high order in vm_area_alloc_pages()
> > > and page allocation failed for high order, the pages** may contain
> > > two different page shifts (high order and order-0). This could
> > > lead __vmap_pages_range_noflush() to perform incorrect mappings,
> > > potentially resulting in memory corruption.
> > >
> > > Users might encounter this as follows (vmap_allow_huge = true, 2M is for PMD_SIZE):
> > > kvmalloc(2M, __GFP_NOFAIL|GFP_X)
> > > __vmalloc_node_range_noprof(vm_flags=VM_ALLOW_HUGE_VMAP)
> > > vm_area_alloc_pages(order=9) ---> order-9 allocation failed and fallback to order-0
> > > vmap_pages_range()
> > > vmap_pages_range_noflush()
> > > __vmap_pages_range_noflush(page_shift = 21) ----> wrong mapping happens
> > >
> > > We can remove the fallback code because if a high-order
> > > allocation fails, __vmalloc_node_range_noprof() will retry with
> > > order-0. Therefore, it is unnecessary to fallback to order-0
> > > here. Therefore, fix this by removing the fallback code.
> > >
> > > Fixes: e9c3cda4d86e ("mm, vmalloc: fix high order __GFP_NOFAIL allocations")
> > > Signed-off-by: Hailong Liu <hailong.liu@...o.com>
> > > Reported-by: Tangquan Zheng <zhengtangquan@...o.com>
> > > Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
> > > CC: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
> > > CC: Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>
> > > CC: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
> > > ---
> >
> > Acked-by: Barry Song <baohua@...nel.org>
> >
> > because we already have a fallback here:
> >
> > void *__vmalloc_node_range_noprof :
> >
> > fail:
> > if (shift > PAGE_SHIFT) {
> > shift = PAGE_SHIFT;
> > align = real_align;
> > size = real_size;
> > goto again;
> > }
>
> This really deserves a comment because this is not really clear at all.
> The code is also fragile and it would benefit from some re-org.
>
> Thanks for the fix.
>
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
>
I agree. This is only clear for people who know the code. A "fallback"
to order-0 should be commented.
--
Uladzislau Rezki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists