netdev - Re: EBPF-triggered WARNING at mm/percpu.c:1361 in v4-14-rc2

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: <20170928144538.GA32487@leverpostej>
Date:   Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:45:38 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, syzkaller@...glegroups.com,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Subject: Re: EBPF-triggered WARNING at mm/percpu.c:1361 in v4-14-rc2

On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 04:37:46PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 09/28/2017 01:27 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >While fuzzing v4.14-rc2 with Syzkaller, I found it was possible to trigger the
> >warning at mm/percpu.c:1361, on both arm64 and x86_64. This appears to require
> >increasing RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, so to the best of my knowledge this cannot be
> >triggered by an unprivileged user.
> >
> >I've included example splats for both x86_64 and arm64, along with a C
> >reproducer, inline below.
> >
> >It looks like dev_map_alloc() requests a percpu alloction of 32776 bytes, which
> >is larger than the maximum supported allocation size of 32768 bytes.
> >
> >I wonder if it would make more sense to pr_warn() for sizes that are too
> >large, so that callers don't have to roll their own checks against
> >PCPU_MIN_UNIT_SIZE?
> 
> Perhaps the pr_warn() should be ratelimited; or could there be an
> option where we only return NULL, not triggering a warn at all (which
> would likely be what callers might do anyway when checking against
> PCPU_MIN_UNIT_SIZE and then bailing out)?

Those both make sense to me; checking __GFP_NOWARN should be easy
enough.

Just to check, do you think that dev_map_alloc() should explicitly test
the size against PCPU_MIN_UNIT_SIZE, prior to calling pcpu_alloc()?

I can spin both patches if so.

Thanks,
Mark.