linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] lib: xarray: free unused spare node in xas_create

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: <3813db02-118d-472f-a889-d58c9d01e736@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2025 14:07:11 +0530
From: Dev Jain <dev.jain@....com>
To: Shardul Bankar <shardul.b@...ricsoftware.com>, willy@...radead.org,
 akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 david@...nel.org, shardulsb08@...il.com, janak@...ricsoftware.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] lib: xarray: free unused spare node in
 xas_create_range()


On 04/12/25 7:56 pm, Shardul Bankar wrote:
> xas_create_range() is typically called in a retry loop that uses
> xas_nomem() to handle -ENOMEM errors. xas_nomem() may allocate a spare
> xa_node and store it in xas->xa_alloc for use in the retry.
>
> If the lock is dropped after xas_nomem(), another thread can expand the

Nit: "When the lock is dropped after xas_create_range()".

> xarray tree in the meantime. On the next retry, xas_create_range() can
> then succeed without consuming the spare node stored in xas->xa_alloc.
> If the function returns without freeing this spare node, it leaks.
>
> xas_create_range() calls xas_create() multiple times in a loop for
> different index ranges. A spare node that isn't needed for one range
> iteration might be needed for the next, so we cannot free it after each
> xas_create() call. We can only safely free it after xas_create_range()
> completes.
>
> Fix this by calling xas_destroy() at the end of xas_create_range() to
> free any unused spare node. This makes the API safer by default and
> prevents callers from needing to remember cleanup.
>
> This fixes a memory leak in mm/khugepaged.c and potentially other
> callers that use xas_nomem() with xas_create_range().
>
> Link: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?id=a274d65fc733448ed518ad15481ed575669dd98c
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251201074540.3576327-1-shardul.b@mpiricsoftware.com/ ("v3")
> Fixes: cae106dd67b9 ("mm/khugepaged: refactor collapse_file control flow")
> Signed-off-by: Shardul Bankar <shardul.b@...ricsoftware.com>
> ---
>   v4:
>   - Drop redundant `if (xa_alloc)` around xas_destroy(), as xas_destroy()
>     already checks xa_alloc internally.
>   v3:
>   - Move fix from collapse_file() to xas_create_range() as suggested by Matthew Wilcox
>   - Fix in library function makes API safer by default, preventing callers from needing
>     to remember cleanup
>   - Use shared cleanup label that both restore: and success: paths jump to
>   - Clean up unused spare node on both success and error exit paths
>   v2:
>   - Call xas_destroy() on both success and failure
>   - Explained retry semantics and xa_alloc / concurrency risk
>   - Dropped cleanup_empty_nodes from previous proposal
>
>   lib/xarray.c | 7 ++++++-
>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/xarray.c b/lib/xarray.c
> index 9a8b4916540c..f49ccfa5f57d 100644
> --- a/lib/xarray.c
> +++ b/lib/xarray.c
> @@ -744,11 +744,16 @@ void xas_create_range(struct xa_state *xas)
>   	xas->xa_shift = shift;
>   	xas->xa_sibs = sibs;
>   	xas->xa_index = index;
> -	return;
> +	goto cleanup;
> +
>   success:
>   	xas->xa_index = index;
>   	if (xas->xa_node)
>   		xas_set_offset(xas);
> +
> +cleanup:
> +	/* Free any unused spare node from xas_nomem() */
> +	xas_destroy(xas);
>   }
>   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xas_create_range);

Since there are other code paths doing this fashion of xas_create/xas_store followed by
calling xas_nomem till the former succeeds, I believe we should handle this in the caller -
for example, I believe we need to fix xa_store_range() as well? It does xas_create, then
drops the lock in the same fashion, and I believe we have no choice here but to handle it
in the caller - we should not put xas_destroy inside xas_create.

Although for this particular case, we have only one caller of xas_create_range, so this
is fine really.


>