linux-kernel - Re: [syzbot] [arm?] WARNING in copy

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: <aOPBdNLJUdN4EAF0@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2025 14:17:40 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: syzbot <syzbot+d1974fc28545a3e6218b@...kaller.appspotmail.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, will@...nel.org,
	Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [arm?] WARNING in copy_highpage

On Mon, Oct 06, 2025 at 09:55:27AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > Modules linked in:
> > > CPU: 1 UID: 0 PID: 25189 Comm: syz.2.7336 Not tainted syzkaller #0 PREEMPT
> > > Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
> > > pstate: 00402009 (nzcv daif +PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT -SSBS BTYPE=--)
> > > pc : copy_highpage+0x150/0x334 arch/arm64/mm/copypage.c:55
> > > lr : copy_highpage+0xb4/0x334 arch/arm64/mm/copypage.c:25
> > > sp : ffff800088053940
> > > x29: ffff800088053940 x28: ffffc1ffc0acf800 x27: ffff800088053b10
> > > x26: ffffc1ffc0acf808 x25: ffffc1ffc037b1c0 x24: ffffc1ffc037b1c0
> > > x23: ffffc1ffc0acf800 x22: ffffc1ffc0acf800 x21: fff000002b3e0000
> > > x20: fff000000dec7000 x19: ffffc1ffc037b1c0 x18: 0000000000000000
> > > x17: fff07ffffcffa000 x16: ffff800080008000 x15: 0000000000000001
> > > x14: 0000000000000000 x13: 0000000000000003 x12: 000000000006d9ad
> > > x11: 0000000000000000 x10: 0000000000000010 x9 : 0000000000000000
> > > x8 : 0000000000000000 x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : 0000000000000000
> > > x5 : ffff800088053b18 x4 : ffff80008032df94 x3 : 00000000ff000000
> > > x2 : 01ffc00003000001 x1 : 01ffc00003000001 x0 : 01ffc00003000001
> > > Call trace:
> > >   try_page_mte_tagging arch/arm64/include/asm/mte.h:93 [inline] (P)
> > >   copy_highpage+0x150/0x334 arch/arm64/mm/copypage.c:55 (P)
> > >   copy_mc_highpage include/linux/highmem.h:383 [inline]
> > >   folio_mc_copy+0x44/0x6c mm/util.c:740
> > >   __migrate_folio.constprop.0+0xc4/0x23c mm/migrate.c:851
> > >   migrate_folio+0x1c/0x2c mm/migrate.c:882
> > >   move_to_new_folio+0x58/0x144 mm/migrate.c:1097
> > >   migrate_folio_move mm/migrate.c:1370 [inline]
> > >   migrate_folios_move mm/migrate.c:1719 [inline]
> > >   migrate_pages_batch+0xaf4/0x1024 mm/migrate.c:1966
> > >   migrate_pages_sync mm/migrate.c:2023 [inline]
> > >   migrate_pages+0xb9c/0xcdc mm/migrate.c:2105
> > >   do_mbind+0x20c/0x4a4 mm/mempolicy.c:1539
> > >   kernel_mbind mm/mempolicy.c:1682 [inline]
> > >   __do_sys_mbind mm/mempolicy.c:1756 [inline]
> > 
> > I don't think we ever stressed MTE with mbind before. I have a suspicion
> > this problem has been around for some time.
> > 
> > My reading of do_mbind() is that it ends up allocating pages for
> > migrating into via alloc_migration_target_by_mpol() ->
> > folio_alloc_mpol(). Pages returned should be untagged and uninitialised
> > unless the PG_* flags have not been cleared on a prior free. Or
> > migrate_pages_batch() somehow reuses some pages instead of reallocating.
> 
> Staring at __migrate_folio(), I assume we can end up successfully calling
> folio_mc_copy(), but then failing in __folio_migrate_mapping().
> 
> Seems to be as easy as failing the folio_ref_freeze() in
> __folio_migrate_mapping().
> 
> We return -EAGAIN in that case, making the caller retry, stumbling into an
> already-tagged page. (with the same source / destination parameters) IIRC)
> 
> So likely this is simply us re-doing the copy after a migration failed after
> the copy.
> 
> Could it happen that we are calling it with a different source/destination
> combination the second time? I don't think so, but I am not 100% sure.

Thanks David. I can now see how it would retry on the same pages without
reallocating. At least we know it's not causing any side-effects, only
messing up the MTE safety warnings.

> The most reliable way would be to un-tag in case folio_mc_copy succeeded but
> __folio_migrate_mapping() failed.

Clearing an MTE specific flag in the core code doesn't look great. Also
going for some generic mask like PAGE_FLAGS_CHECK_AT_PREP may have
side-effects as we don't know where the page is coming from (we have
those get_new_folio()/put_new_folio() arguments passed on by higher up
callers).

I'm tempted to just drop the warning in the arm64 copy_highpage(),
replace it with a comment about migration retrying on a potentially
tagged page. It will have to override the tags each time (as it
currently does but also warns).

-- 
Catalin