netdev - Re: WARNING in sk_stream_kill

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]

Date:   Tue, 8 Dec 2020 20:06:06 +0100
From:   Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
        Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
        syzbot <syzbot+7b99aafdcc2eedea6178@...kaller.appspotmail.com>
Subject: Re: WARNING in sk_stream_kill_queues (5)

On Thu, 3 Dec 2020 at 19:01, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> On 12/3/20 6:41 PM, Marco Elver wrote:
>
> > One more experiment -- simply adding
> >
> > --- a/net/core/skbuff.c
> > +++ b/net/core/skbuff.c
> > @@ -207,7 +207,21 @@ struct sk_buff *__alloc_skb(unsigned int size, gfp_t gfp_mask,
> >        */
> >       size = SKB_DATA_ALIGN(size);
> >       size += SKB_DATA_ALIGN(sizeof(struct skb_shared_info));
> > +     size = 1 << kmalloc_index(size); /* HACK */
> >       data = kmalloc_reserve(size, gfp_mask, node, &pfmemalloc);
> >
> >
> > also got rid of the warnings. Something must be off with some value that
> > is computed in terms of ksize(). If not, I don't have any explanation
> > for why the above hides the problem.
>
> Maybe the implementations of various macros (SKB_DATA_ALIGN and friends)
> hae some kind of assumptions, I will double check this.

If I force kfence to return 4K sized allocations for everything, the
warnings remain. That might suggest that it's not due to a missed
ALIGN.

Is it possible that copies or moves are a problem? E.g. we copy
something from kfence -> non-kfence object (or vice-versa), and
ksize() no longer matches, then things go wrong?

Thanks,
-- Marco