linux-kernel - 回复: 回复: [PATCH] mm: Fix possible NULL pointer dereference in __swap

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f023968c870e42f3b32e5038d393163f@honor.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 10:04:20 +0000
From: gaoxu <gaoxu2@...or.com>
To: Yosry Ahmed <yosry.ahmed@...ux.dev>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "linux-mm@...ck.org"
	<linux-mm@...ck.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Barry
 Song <21cnbao@...il.com>, yipengxiang <yipengxiang@...or.com>, "Hugh Dickins"
	<hughd@...gle.com>, Chris Li <chrisl@...nel.org>
Subject: 回复: 回复: [PATCH] mm: Fix possible NULL pointer dereference in __swap_duplicate

> > >
> > > > swp_swap_info() may return null; it is necessary to check the
> > > > return value to avoid NULL pointer dereference. The code for other
> > > > calls to
> > > > swp_swap_info() includes checks, and __swap_duplicate() should
> > > > also include checks.
> > >
> > > Actually very few of the swp_swap_info() callers check for a NULL return.
> > The swapfile.c file contains three instances where the return value of
> > swp_swap_info() is checked for a NULL return. In other files that call
> > swp_swap_info(), I have confirmed that there are no such checks.
> > The description in the patch is inaccurate, and I have made
> > modifications in patch v2.
> > >
> > > > The reason why swp_swap_info() returns NULL is unclear; it may be
> > > > due to CPU cache issues or DDR bit flips.
> > >
> > > Quite possibly it's a kernel bug.
> > >
> > > > The probability of this issue is very small, and the stack info we
> > > > encountered is as follows：
> > > > Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual
> > > > address
> > > > 0000000000000058
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > > --- a/mm/swapfile.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/swapfile.c
> > > > @@ -3521,6 +3521,8 @@ static int __swap_duplicate(swp_entry_t
> > > > entry,
> > > unsigned char usage, int nr)
> > > >  	int err, i;
> > > >
> > > >  	si = swp_swap_info(entry);
> > > > +	if (unlikely(!si))
> > > > +		return -EINVAL;
> > > >
> > > >  	offset = swp_offset(entry);
> > > >  	VM_WARN_ON(nr > SWAPFILE_CLUSTER - offset %
> SWAPFILE_CLUSTER);
> > >
> > > OK, I guess avoiding the crash is good.  But please let's include a
> > > WARN so that we can perhaps fix the bug, if one is there.
> > Good. I'll change it as mentioned and send a new patch.
> > 	si = swp_swap_info(entry);
> > +	if (unlikely(!si)) {
> > +		WARN(1, KERN_ERR "%s: %s%08lx\n", __func__, Bad_file, entry.val);
> 
> WARN() already contains unlikely(). Also, no need to print the function name it's
> already in the stack trace.
> 
> We should probably just do if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!si)).
> 
> > +		return -EINVAL;
> > +	}
Yes, thank you for your suggestion. This modification makes the code simpler.
	si = swp_swap_info(entry);
+	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!si))
+		return -EINVAL;

> >
> >