From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD172C433F5 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 16:45:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 30F438D0002; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 11:45:43 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 296A98D0001; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 11:45:43 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 111B68D0002; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 11:45:43 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0092.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.92]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EECA28D0001 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 11:45:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin17.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADF1A181740D0 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 16:45:42 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79207280124.17.EC46E52 Received: from mail-vs1-f44.google.com (mail-vs1-f44.google.com [209.85.217.44]) by imf18.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D7D11C0018 for ; Fri, 4 Mar 2022 16:45:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-vs1-f44.google.com with SMTP id d64so4067646vsd.12 for ; Fri, 04 Mar 2022 08:45:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=GA0SoMn+kIK7VXpyWPIIcjTCHNEkwSgfzR0APlNlrJg=; b=pSeR3hef1XnxR4/nQFW+MFhfBtxvVFp57i9Us/VREs4VLuFusv1k4tzGc2MaHU2Mfl Bllgnmtnqu8UpbbnFCnunqddYu2K73j1s0TZAAxfmGirAE2DZnpmVl2q4V4zfdJv7Th5 57eG/TvYKIQwBaAUYHriLKGxCEgM9kgeFhl4P08BcDWh/Qe7SjYVpaS+X73Y7kfowo3x m98tRTA9aRRBj9wnENGhz72MRBsZ5rZQwVDCoh3l3ZidlnJ+xBw5p+KjOvNWWsQnpzmD iNBt82ep8JZcXXhqfte7CY640ZR7O2LHWbFN/PFNSJ60cGov6bhIJ1UNpqz4HH02xLBZ A/dA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=GA0SoMn+kIK7VXpyWPIIcjTCHNEkwSgfzR0APlNlrJg=; b=AkaM0pUKToR7/QOCEgpWRe2ugtERSZLGmZiyUPiGc+ahjm80iBrtR8KwrQym08iMw1 crh9rUkjyssv2nWWNaWjJcizbGG8j/Ylh4tcR2giFbDpFpElS25bxBQc/T/yJztOydzz FjTcln7HtvBQi730kSmC1l88FzWfKyJWLVaIz8eAm0o1kmNYQdLEbThycoZ0cOLeeMZg pYYHcKmMewtVV8Ki2JnbFVN0vW0ojYvgFYYMP2yoVu2sfiHawPfAAee0iXK2GdB9Mbpz S0xkc/PA3Nz82leP58XeF29FcKZ5AMig3lDAs/tdAb8HUuqdps7caMjiaD34INl75ZXI z+Xw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532sVTyqZE20a4PUECyXyojV1MzsEt4t4/9U5KrFp5k9JKshGhKV 1sbkkMYnQSQmDHJt5VwfKWzV1b6s4JURxHeF/2dC9Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyYpNlo2UIy0FwUyKX/4wcjFBLUOGvJrApitzy2ngjrFoIOsaKqWnVb6EliqTa8tklvYFF99QmZXD7MOGAgIBU= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:303a:b0:31b:f6a6:237f with SMTP id v26-20020a056102303a00b0031bf6a6237fmr16448932vsa.4.1646412341333; Fri, 04 Mar 2022 08:45:41 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220304063427.372145-1-42.hyeyoo@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Marco Elver Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 17:45:05 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] slab cleanups To: Vlastimil Babka Cc: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org, Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , David Rientjes , Joonsoo Kim , Andrew Morton , Matthew WilCox , Roman Gushchin , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Rspamd-Server: rspam10 X-Rspam-User: X-Stat-Signature: 6grr56fa3zbbigytjahh4r6bh8zhhsgt Authentication-Results: imf18.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=google.com header.s=20210112 header.b=pSeR3hef; spf=pass (imf18.hostedemail.com: domain of elver@google.com designates 209.85.217.44 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=elver@google.com; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=google.com X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4D7D11C0018 X-HE-Tag: 1646412342-659320 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 at 17:42, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > On 3/4/22 14:11, Marco Elver wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 at 13:02, Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 12:50:21PM +0100, Marco Elver wrote: > >> > On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 at 07:34, Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > Changes from v1: > >> > > Now SLAB passes requests larger than order-1 page > >> > > to page allocator. > >> > > > >> > > Adjusted comments from Matthew, Vlastimil, Rientjes. > >> > > Thank you for feedback! > >> > > > >> > > BTW, I have no idea what __ksize() should return when an object that > >> > > is not allocated from slab is passed. both 0 and folio_size() > >> > > seems wrong to me. > >> > > >> > Didn't we say 0 would be the safer of the two options? > >> > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/0e02416f-ef43-dc8a-9e8e-50ff63dd3c61@suse.cz > >> > > >> > >> Oh sorry, I didn't understand why 0 was safer when I was reading it. > >> > >> Reading again, 0 is safer because kasan does not unpoison for > >> wrongly passed object, right? > > > > Not quite. KASAN can tell if something is wrong, i.e. invalid object. > > Similarly, if you are able to tell if the passed pointer is not a > > valid object some other way, you can do something better - namely, > > return 0. > > Hmm, but how paranoid do we have to be? Patch 1 converts SLAB to use > kmalloc_large(). So it's now legitimate to have objects allocated by SLAB's > kmalloc() that don't have a slab folio flag set, and their size is > folio_size(). It would be more common than getting a bogus pointer, so > should we return 0 just because a bogus pointer is possible? No of course not, which is why I asked in the earlier email if it's a "definitive failure case". > If we do that, > then KASAN will fail to unpoison legitimate kmalloc_large() objects, no? > What I suggested earlier is we could make the checks more precise - if > folio_size() is smaller or equal order-1 page, then it's bogus because we > only do kmalloc_large() for >order-1. If the object pointer is not to the > beginning of the folio, then it's bogus, because kmalloc_large() returns the > beginning of the folio. Then in these case we return 0, but otherwise we > should return folio_size()? > > > The intuition here is that the caller has a pointer to an > > invalid object, and wants to use ksize() to determine its size, and > > most likely access all those bytes. Arguably, at that point the kernel > > is already in a degrading state. But we can try to not let things get > > worse by having ksize() return 0, in the hopes that it will stop > > corrupting more memory. It won't work in all cases, but should avoid > > things like "s = ksize(obj); touch_all_bytes(obj, s)" where the size > > bounds the memory accessed corrupting random memory. > > > > The other reason is that a caller could actually check the size, and > > if 0, do something else. Few callers will do so, because nobody > > expects that their code has a bug. :-) >