From: liuyuntao <liuyuntao10@huawei.com>
To: <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Cc: <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <fangchuangchuang@huawei.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
<liuyuntao10@huawei.com>, <windspectator@gmail.com>,
<wuxu.wu@huawei.com>, <yaozhenguo1@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: fix a truncation issue in hugepages parameter
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 11:22:26 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220210032226.9043-1-liuyuntao10@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <95d1dc4e-fc3b-fe3c-5d85-218a7410e966@oracle.com>
On 2022-02-10 0:43 UTC, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 2/9/22 05:40, liuyuntao wrote:
> > From: Liu Yuntao <liuyuntao10@huawei.com>
> >
> > When we specify a large number for node in hugepages parameter,
> > it may be parsed to another number due to truncation in this statement:
> > node = tmp;
> >
> > For example, add following parameter in command line:
> > hugepagesz=1G hugepages=4294967297:5
> > and kernel will allocate 5 hugepages for node 1 instead of ignoring it.
> >
> > I move the validation check earlier to fix this issue, and slightly
> > simplifies the condition here.
> >
> > Fixes: b5389086ad7be0 ("hugetlbfs: extend the definition of hugepages parameter to support node allocation")
> > Signed-off-by: Liu Yuntao <liuyuntao10@huawei.com>
> > ---
> > mm/hugetlb.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> > index 61895cc01d09..0929547f6ad6 100644
> > --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> > +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> > @@ -4159,10 +4159,10 @@ static int __init hugepages_setup(char *s)
> > pr_warn("HugeTLB: architecture can't support node specific alloc, ignoring!\n");
> > return 0;
> > }
> > + if (tmp >= nr_online_nodes)
> > + goto invalid;
> > node = tmp;
>
> I am surprised none of the automated checking complained about that
> assignment.
I think such assignments may be very common in kernel, and thus automated
checks just ignore them.
>
> > p += count + 1;
> > - if (node < 0 || node >= nr_online_nodes)
>
> I can't remember, but I think that check for node < 0 was added to handle
> overflow during the above assignment. Do you remember Zhenguo Yao?
No, I don't. I took a look and found that the check for node < 0 has been
there since his first version of patch.
>
> > - goto invalid;
> > /* Parse hugepages */
> > if (sscanf(p, "%lu%n", &tmp, &count) != 1)
> > goto invalid;
>
> Thanks,
>
> Reviewed-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
>
> --
> Mike Kravetz
--
Liu Yuntao
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-10 3:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-02-09 13:40 liuyuntao
2022-02-10 0:43 ` Mike Kravetz
2022-02-10 3:22 ` liuyuntao [this message]
2022-02-28 2:59 ` Zhenguo Yao
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220210032226.9043-1-liuyuntao10@huawei.com \
--to=liuyuntao10@huawei.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fangchuangchuang@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=windspectator@gmail.com \
--cc=wuxu.wu@huawei.com \
--cc=yaozhenguo1@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox