linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] proc: Avoid costly high-order page allocations when reading proc files

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: <Z-y50vEs_9MbjQhi@harry>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2025 13:15:14 +0900
From: Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>
To: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
Cc: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>, joel.granados@...nel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: Avoid costly high-order page allocations when
 reading proc files

On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 07:01:04AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> 
> 
> On April 1, 2025 12:30:46 AM PDT, Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com> wrote:
> >While investigating a kcompactd 100% CPU utilization issue in production, I
> >observed frequent costly high-order (order-6) page allocations triggered by
> >proc file reads from monitoring tools. This can be reproduced with a simple
> >test case:
> >
> >  fd = open(PROC_FILE, O_RDONLY);
> >  size = read(fd, buff, 256KB);
> >  close(fd);
> >
> >Although we should modify the monitoring tools to use smaller buffer sizes,
> >we should also enhance the kernel to prevent these expensive high-order
> >allocations.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>
> >Cc: Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>
> >---
> > fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c | 10 +++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c b/fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c
> >index cc9d74a06ff0..c53ba733bda5 100644
> >--- a/fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c
> >+++ b/fs/proc/proc_sysctl.c
> >@@ -581,7 +581,15 @@ static ssize_t proc_sys_call_handler(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter,
> > 	error = -ENOMEM;
> > 	if (count >= KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE)
> > 		goto out;
> >-	kbuf = kvzalloc(count + 1, GFP_KERNEL);
> >+
> >+	/*
> >+	 * Use vmalloc if the count is too large to avoid costly high-order page
> >+	 * allocations.
> >+	 */
> >+	if (count < (PAGE_SIZE << PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER))
> >+		kbuf = kvzalloc(count + 1, GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> Why not move this check into kvmalloc family?

Hmm should this check really be in kvmalloc family?

I don't think users would expect kvmalloc() to implictly decide on using
vmalloc() without trying kmalloc() first, just because it's a high-order
allocation.

> >+	else
> >+		kbuf = vmalloc(count + 1);
> 
> You dropped the zeroing. This must be vzalloc.
> 
> > 	if (!kbuf)
> > 		goto out;
> > 
> 
> Alternatively, why not force count to be <PAGE_SIZE? What uses >PAGE_SIZE writes in proc/sys?
> 
> -Kees
> 
> -- 
> Kees Cook

-- 
Cheers,
Harry (formerly known as Hyeonggon)