netdev - Re: Fwd: mm/page_alloc.c:4453 with cfg80211_wiphy

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: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 15:53:43 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
 David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
 Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
 Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@...il.com>, Rudi Heitbaum <rudi@...tbaum.com>,
 Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
 "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
 Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
 Linux Regressions <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
 Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
 Linux Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
 Linux Wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Fwd: mm/page_alloc.c:4453 with cfg80211_wiphy_work [cfg80211]

On 7/16/23 13:28, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 16, 2023 at 06:10:44PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I notice a regression report on Bugzilla [1]. Quoting from it:
> 
> Maybe you could try doing some work on this bug before just spamming
> people with it?
> 
>         if (WARN_ON_ONCE_GFP(order > MAX_ORDER, gfp))
>                 return NULL;
> 
> This is the page allocator telling the caller that they've asked for an
> unreasonably large allocation.
> 
> Now, this bug is actually interesting to the MM because the caller
> called kmalloc() with a ridiculous size.  Arguable kmalloc should
> protect callers from themselves (alloc_pages() is more low level
> and can presume its users know what they're doing).
> 
> Vlastimil, what do you think?  Something like ...

Hmm should be more robust to check size > KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE before even doing
get_order(size). Ultimately it checks the same limit.
But I'm unsure about just returning NULL. I think warn_on_once might be
useful even there - in case a bug is introduced/exposed, even a
inexperienced user will be easily able to report sufficient information wich
a WARN and its stacktrace, even if the callsite's alloc check doesn't
provide it in an obvious way?

> +++ b/mm/slab_common.c
> @@ -1119,6 +1119,8 @@ static void *__kmalloc_large_node(size_t size, gfp_t flags, int node)
>         void *ptr = NULL;
>         unsigned int order = get_order(size);
> 
> +       if (order > MAX_ORDER)
> +               return NULL;
>         if (unlikely(flags & GFP_SLAB_BUG_MASK))
>                 flags = kmalloc_fix_flags(flags);
> 
> 
>