| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <268f8300-3be0-4b45-aa86-e11bf09c86bb@linux.dev>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2025 17:11:01 +0800
From: Hao Ge <hao.ge@...ux.dev>
To: Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Christoph Lameter
<cl@...two.org>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>, Shakeel Butt
<shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>, linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Hao Ge <gehao@...inos.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slab: Fix obj_ext is mistakenly considered NULL due to
race condition
Hi Harry
On 2025/10/23 17:06, Harry Yoo wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 04:46:42PM +0800, Hao Ge wrote:
>> Hi Harry
>>
>>
>> On 2025/10/23 16:23, Hao Ge wrote:
>>> Hi Harry
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2025/10/23 15:50, Harry Yoo wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 11:11:56AM +0800, Hao Ge wrote:
>>>>> Hi Harry
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2025/10/23 10:24, Harry Yoo wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 09:21:17AM +0800, Hao Ge wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Hao Ge <gehao@...inos.cn>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If two competing threads enter alloc_slab_obj_exts(), and the
>>>>>>> thread that failed to allocate the object extension vector exits
>>>>>>> after the one that succeeded, it will mistakenly assume slab->obj_ext
>>>>>>> is still empty due to its own allocation failure. This
>>>>>>> will then trigger
>>>>>>> warnings enforced by CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING_DEBUG checks in
>>>>>>> the subsequent free path.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Therefore, let's add an additional check when
>>>>>>> alloc_slab_obj_exts fails.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Hao Ge <gehao@...inos.cn>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> mm/slub.c | 9 ++++++---
>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
>>>>>>> index d4403341c9df..42276f0cc920 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/mm/slub.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/mm/slub.c
>>>>>>> @@ -2227,9 +2227,12 @@ prepare_slab_obj_exts_hook(struct
>>>>>>> kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags, void *p)
>>>>>>> slab = virt_to_slab(p);
>>>>>>> if (!slab_obj_exts(slab) &&
>>>>>>> alloc_slab_obj_exts(slab, s, flags, false)) {
>>>>>>> - pr_warn_once("%s, %s: Failed to create slab
>>>>>>> extension vector!\n",
>>>>>>> - __func__, s->name);
>>>>>>> - return NULL;
>>>>>>> + /* Recheck if a racing thread has successfully
>>>>>>> allocated slab->obj_exts. */
>>>>>>> + if (!slab_obj_exts(slab)) {
>>>>>>> + pr_warn_once("%s, %s: Failed to create slab
>>>>>>> extension vector!\n",
>>>>>>> + __func__, s->name);
>>>>>>> + return NULL;
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>> Maybe this patch is a bit paranoid... since if
>>>>>> mark_failed_objexts_alloc()
>>>>>> win cmpxchg() and then someone else allocates the object
>>>>>> extension vector,
>>>>>> the warning will still be printed anyway.
>>>> Oh, just to be clear I was talking about the other warning:
>>>> pr_warn_once("%s, %s: Failed to create slab extension vector!",
>>>> __func__, s->name);
>>>>
>>>>> The process that successfully allocates slab_exts will call
>>>>> handle_failed_objexts_alloc, setting ref->ct = CODETAG_EMPTY
>>>>> to prevent the warning from being triggered.
>>>> But yeah I see what you mean.
>>>>
>>>> As you mentioned, if the process that failed to allocate the vector wins
>>>> cmpxchg(), later process that successfully allocate the vector would
>>>> call set_codetag_empty(), so no warning.
>>>>
>>>> But if the process that allocates the vector wins cmpxchg(),
>>>> then it won't call set_codetag_empty(), so the process
>>>> that was trying to set OBJEXTS_ALLOC_FAIL now needs to set the tag.
>>> Yes, the case I'm encountering is exactly this one.
>>>
>>>>>> But anyway, I think there is a better way to do this:
>>>> What do you think about the diff I suggested below, though?
>>> Sorry for the delayed response earlier; I was trying to deduce all
>>> possible scenarios.
>>>
>>> It makes sense to me, and I will submit the V2 version based on this
>>> suggestion.
>>>
>>> Thank you for your help.
>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
>>>>>> index dd4c85ea1038..d08d7580349d 100644
>>>>>> --- a/mm/slub.c
>>>>>> +++ b/mm/slub.c
>>>>>> @@ -2052,9 +2052,9 @@ static inline void
>>>>>> mark_objexts_empty(struct slabobj_ext *obj_exts)
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> -static inline void mark_failed_objexts_alloc(struct slab *slab)
>>>>>> +static inline bool mark_failed_objexts_alloc(struct slab *slab)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> - cmpxchg(&slab->obj_exts, 0, OBJEXTS_ALLOC_FAIL);
>>>>>> + return cmpxchg(&slab->obj_exts, 0, OBJEXTS_ALLOC_FAIL) == 0;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> static inline void handle_failed_objexts_alloc(unsigned
>>>>>> long obj_exts,
>>>>>> @@ -2076,7 +2076,7 @@ static inline void
>>>>>> handle_failed_objexts_alloc(unsigned long obj_exts,
>>>>>> #else /* CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING_DEBUG */
>>>>>> static inline void mark_objexts_empty(struct slabobj_ext
>>>>>> *obj_exts) {}
>>>>>> -static inline void mark_failed_objexts_alloc(struct slab *slab) {}
>>>>>> +static inline bool mark_failed_objexts_alloc(struct slab
>>>>>> *slab) { return true; }
>> Maybe it returns false here.
>>
>> When CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING_DEBUG is not enabled,
>>
>> The following condition will never be executed:
>>
>> if (!mark_failed_objexts_alloc(slab) && slab_obj_exts(slab))
> Good point. But without CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING_DEBUG, we don't know
> if someone else successfully allocated the vector or not (unlike, with
> CONFIG_MEM_ALLOC_PROFILING_DEBUG enabled, we know that when we lose
> cmpxchg()). We cannot "fix" the case where a process fails to allocate
> the vector but another allocates the vector.
>
> So I'm not sure if checking slab_obj_exts() once more is worth it in
> this case, but I'm fine with either way.
>
>> if another process that allocates the vector, we will lose one count.
> By "one count" you mean skipping accounting the object in memory
> profiling, right?
Yes.
>
>>>>>> static inline void handle_failed_objexts_alloc(unsigned
>>>>>> long obj_exts,
>>>>>> struct slabobj_ext *vec, unsigned int objects) {}
>>>>>> @@ -2125,7 +2125,9 @@ int alloc_slab_obj_exts(struct slab
>>>>>> *slab, struct kmem_cache *s,
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> if (!vec) {
>>>>>> /* Mark vectors which failed to allocate */
>>>>>> - mark_failed_objexts_alloc(slab);
>>>>>> + if (!mark_failed_objexts_alloc(slab) &&
>>>>>> + slab_obj_exts(slab))
>>>>>> + return 0;
>>>>>> return -ENOMEM;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists