linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] mm/compaction: remove unnecessary detection code.

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: <f1cdc0e0-6704-4dc4-a3cf-158fc867db56@suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:52:20 +0100
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Qiang Liu <liuq131@...natelecom.cn>, baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com,
 Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>,
 Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/compaction: remove unnecessary detection code.

On 11/14/24 08:44, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 11/14/24 07:57, Qiang Liu wrote:
>> It is impossible for the situation where blockpfn > end_pfn to arise,
>> The if statement here is not only unnecessary, but may also lead to
>> a misunderstanding that blockpfn > end_pfn could potentially happen.
>> so these unnecessary checking code should be removed.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Qiang Liu <liuq131@...natelecom.cn>
> 
> I see that's since 3da0272a4c7d ("mm/compaction: correctly return failure
> with bogus compound_order in strict mode")

Hm but we still have:

for (; blockpfn < end_pfn; blockpfn += stride, page += stride) {

and this advance by stride can mix up with advance by isolated, initial pfn
might not be aligned... I don't see any guarantee that the for loop will
exit with exactly blockpfn == end_pfn, it may easily advance beyond end_pfn
so we shouldn't remove the check?

> I think that commit introduced a risk of overflow due to a bogus order
> (which we read in a racy way), and once blockpfn overflows it will satisfy
> <= end_pfn and might e.g. end up scanning a completely different zone?
> 
>                         if (blockpfn + (1UL << order) <= end_pfn) {
> 
>                                 blockpfn += (1UL << order) - 1;
>                                 page += (1UL << order) - 1;
>                                 nr_scanned += (1UL << order) - 1;
>                         }
> 
> We should better add back the MAX_ORDER sanity check?
> 
>> ---
>>  mm/compaction.c | 6 ------
>>  1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/mm/compaction.c b/mm/compaction.c
>> index a2b16b08cbbf..baeda7132252 100644
>> --- a/mm/compaction.c
>> +++ b/mm/compaction.c
>> @@ -682,12 +682,6 @@ static unsigned long isolate_freepages_block(struct compact_control *cc,
>>  	if (locked)
>>  		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cc->zone->lock, flags);
>>  
>> -	/*
>> -	 * Be careful to not go outside of the pageblock.
>> -	 */
>> -	if (unlikely(blockpfn > end_pfn))
>> -		blockpfn = end_pfn;
>> -
>>  	trace_mm_compaction_isolate_freepages(*start_pfn, blockpfn,
>>  					nr_scanned, total_isolated);
>>  
> 
>