On Fri, 1 Oct 2021 14:56:30 -0700 Eric Dumazet <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>
>
> syzbot reported access to unitialized memory in mbind() [1]
I'm lazy. What memory is being accessed-unintialized?
> Issue came with commit bda420b98505 ("numa balancing: migrate on
> fault among multiple bound nodes")
No cc:stable? What's the worst-case user-visible impact here?
On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 3:49 PM Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2021 14:56:30 -0700 Eric Dumazet <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > From: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>
> >
> > syzbot reported access to unitialized memory in mbind() [1]
>
> I'm lazy. What memory is being accessed-unintialized?
I think you can clearly see that with this debug patch (courtesy of
Alexander Potapenko) :
(Then issue various mbind( ...MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING | MPOL_LOCAL ...)
in a loop... )
diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
index 1592b081c58e..95a4d71efe99 100644
--- a/mm/mempolicy.c
+++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
@@ -291,6 +291,7 @@ static struct mempolicy *mpol_new(unsigned short
mode, unsigned short flags,
} else if (nodes_empty(*nodes))
return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
policy = kmem_cache_alloc(policy_cache, GFP_KERNEL);
+ memset(policy, 0xAA, sizeof(struct mempolicy));
if (!policy)
return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
atomic_set(&policy->refcnt, 1);
@@ -2256,9 +2257,12 @@ bool __mpol_equal(struct mempolicy *a, struct
mempolicy *b)
return false;
if (a->flags != b->flags)
return false;
- if (mpol_store_user_nodemask(a))
+ if (mpol_store_user_nodemask(a)) {
+ pr_err("struct mempolicy *a: %px, nodemask: %px\n", a,
*(void**)&(a->w.user_nodemask));
+ pr_err("struct mempolicy *b: %px, nodemask: %px\n", b,
*(void**)&(b->w.user_nodemask));
if (!nodes_equal(a->w.user_nodemask, b->w.user_nodemask))
return false;
+ }
switch (a->mode) {
case MPOL_BIND:
>
> > Issue came with commit bda420b98505 ("numa balancing: migrate on
> > fault among multiple bound nodes")
>
> No cc:stable? What's the worst-case user-visible impact here?
I added the more precise tag : Fixes: bda420b98505 ("numa balancing:
migrate on fault among multiple bound nodes")
I only put Fixes: tag, so that stable teams can use their automation just fine.
worst-case impact, I am not sure if any application ever used this
undocumented combinations of flags ?
Also, it is generally advised that accessing garbage values has
undocumented behavior.
A host could for example crash (it certainly does with KMSAN)
On Fri, Oct 01, 2021 at 04:37:40PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > Issue came with commit bda420b98505 ("numa balancing: migrate on
> > > fault among multiple bound nodes")
> >
> > No cc:stable? What's the worst-case user-visible impact here?
>
> I added the more precise tag : Fixes: bda420b98505 ("numa balancing:
> migrate on fault among multiple bound nodes")
> I only put Fixes: tag, so that stable teams can use their automation just fine.
>
> worst-case impact, I am not sure if any application ever used this
> undocumented combinations of flags ?
> Also, it is generally advised that accessing garbage values has
> undocumented behavior.
> A host could for example crash (it certainly does with KMSAN)
mm has special stable rules; fixes only get backported if explicitly
requested instead of automatically like most of the rest of the kernel.