linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: Handle alloc failure in phys_*

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: <70530630-6781-485C-9F2A-531E121692D1@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2025 23:41:21 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Em Sharnoff <sharnoff@...n.tech>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
        Oleg Vasilev <oleg@...n.tech>, Arthur Petukhovsky <arthur@...n.tech>,
        Stefan Radig <stefan@...n.tech>, Misha Sakhnov <misha@...n.tech>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/mm: Handle alloc failure in phys_*_init()

On June 4, 2025 11:36:45 PM PDT, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>* Em Sharnoff <sharnoff@...n.tech> wrote:
>
>> tl;dr:
>> 
>> * When setting up page table mappings for physical addresses after boot,
>>   alloc_low_page() uses GFP_ATOMIC, which is allowed to fail.
>> * This isn't currently handled, and results in a null pointer
>>   dereference when it occurs.
>> * This allocation failure can happen during memory hotplug.
>> 
>> To handle failure, change phys_pud_init() and similar functions to
>> return zero if allocation failed (either directly or transitively), and
>> convert that to -ENOMEM in arch_add_memory().
>
>> +		/*
>> +		 * Bail only after updating pgd/p4d to keep progress from p4d across retries.
>> +		 */
>> +		if (!paddr_last)
>> +			return 0;
>> +
>>  		pgd_changed = true;
>
>> -	init_memory_mapping(start, start + size, params->pgprot);
>> +	if (!init_memory_mapping(start, start + size, params->pgprot))
>> +		return -ENOMEM;
>
>I agree that it makes total sense to fix all this (especially since you 
>are actively triggering it), but have you tried also changing it away 
>from GFP_ATOMIC? There's no real reason why it should be GFP_ATOMIC 
>AFAICS, other than some historic inertia that nobody bothered to fix.
>
>Plus, could you please change the return flow from this zero 
>special-case over to something like ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM) and IS_ERR()?
>
>*Technically* zero is a valid physical address, although we 
>intentionally never use it in the kernel AFAIK and wouldn't ever put a 
>page table there either. ERR_PTR()/IS_ERR() is much easier on the eyes 
>than the zero special-case.
>
>Finally, could you make this a 2-patch fix series: first one to fix the 
>error return path to not crash, and the second one to change it away 
>from GFP_ATOMIC?
>
>Thanks,
>
>	Ingo

Specifically, zero is a valid *user space* address.