linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] slab: prevent infinite loop in kmalloc

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: <5bb311a5-b59f-4897-b4d0-4e06d7d2b3f2@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2025 10:56:37 +0530
From: Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>,
 Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>, David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
 Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slab: prevent infinite loop in kmalloc_nolock() with
 debugging


On 03/11/25 5:54 pm, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> In review of a followup work, Harry noticed a potential infinite loop.
> Upon closed inspection, it already exists for kmalloc_nolock() on a
> cache with debugging enabled, since commit af92793e52c3 ("slab:
> Introduce kmalloc_nolock() and kfree_nolock().")
>
> When alloc_single_from_new_slab() fails to trylock node list_lock, we
> keep retrying to get partial slab or allocate a new slab. If we indeed
> interrupted somebody holding the list_lock, the trylock fill fail

Hi Vlastimil,

I see that we always take n->list_lock spinlock by disabling irqs. So
how can we interrupt someone holding the list_lock?
If we are already in a path holding list_lock, and trigger a slab allocation
and recursively end up in the same path again, we can get the situation
you mention, is that possible?

> deterministically and we end up allocating and defer-freeing slabs
> indefinitely with no progress.
>
> To fix it, fail the allocation if spinning is not allowed. This is
> acceptable in the restricted context of kmalloc_nolock(), especially
> with debugging enabled.
>
> Reported-by: Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/aQLqZjjq1SPD3Fml@hyeyoo/
> Fixes: af92793e52c3 ("slab: Introduce kmalloc_nolock() and kfree_nolock().")
> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
> ---
> as we discussed in the linked thread, 6.18 hotfix to be included in
> slab/for-next-fixes
> ---
>   mm/slub.c | 6 +++++-
>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> index d4367f25b20d..f1a5373eee7b 100644
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -4666,8 +4666,12 @@ static void *___slab_alloc(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t gfpflags, int node,
>   	if (kmem_cache_debug(s)) {
>   		freelist = alloc_single_from_new_slab(s, slab, orig_size, gfpflags);
>   
> -		if (unlikely(!freelist))
> +		if (unlikely(!freelist)) {
> +			/* This could cause an endless loop. Fail instead. */
> +			if (!allow_spin)
> +				return NULL;
>   			goto new_objects;
> +		}
>   
>   		if (s->flags & SLAB_STORE_USER)
>   			set_track(s, freelist, TRACK_ALLOC, addr,
>
> ---
> base-commit: 6146a0f1dfae5d37442a9ddcba012add260bceb0
> change-id: 20251103-fix-nolock-loop-854e0101672f
>
> Best regards,