[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aIjPlvRyRttUDAow@hyeyoo>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2025 22:41:42 +0900
From: Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>
To: Li Qiong <liqiong@...china.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm: slub: avoid deref of free pointer in sanity
checks if object is invalid
On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 04:14:55PM +0800, Li Qiong wrote:
> For debugging, object_err() prints free pointer of the object.
> However, if check_valid_pointer() returns false for a object,
> dereferncing `object + s->offset` can lead to a crash. Therefore,
> print the object's address in such cases.
As the code changed a bit, I think the commit message could better reflect
what this patch actually does.
> Fixes: bb192ed9aa71 ("mm/slub: Convert most struct page to struct slab by spatch")
As Vlastimil mentioned in previous version, this is not the first commit
that introduced this problem.
> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Li Qiong <liqiong@...china.com>
> ---
> v2:
> - rephrase the commit message, add comment for object_err().
> v3:
> - check object pointer in object_err().
> ---
> mm/slub.c | 8 ++++++--
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> index 31e11ef256f9..d3abae5a2193 100644
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -1104,7 +1104,11 @@ static void object_err(struct kmem_cache *s, struct slab *slab,
> return;
>
> slab_bug(s, reason);
> - print_trailer(s, slab, object);
> + if (!check_valid_pointer(s, slab, object)) {
> + print_slab_info(slab);
> + pr_err("invalid object 0x%p\n", object);
Can we just handle this inside print_trailer() because that's the function
that prints the object's free pointer, metadata, etc.?
Also, the message should start with a capital letter.
and "invalid object" sounds misleading because it's the pointer
that is invalid. Perhaps simply "Invalid pointer 0x%p\n"?
(What would be the most comprehensive message here? :P)
> + } else
> + print_trailer(s, slab, object);
> add_taint(TAINT_BAD_PAGE, LOCKDEP_NOW_UNRELIABLE);
>
> WARN_ON(1);
> @@ -1587,7 +1591,7 @@ static inline int alloc_consistency_checks(struct kmem_cache *s,
> return 0;
>
> if (!check_valid_pointer(s, slab, object)) {
> - object_err(s, slab, object, "Freelist Pointer check fails");
> + slab_err(s, slab, "Freelist Pointer(0x%p) check fails", object);
> return 0;
Do we really need this hunk after making object_err() resiliant
against wild pointers?
> }
--
Cheers,
Harry / Hyeonggon
Powered by blists - more mailing lists