Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753315AbdI1OrS (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:47:18 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:58814 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752357AbdI1OrQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Sep 2017 10:47:16 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 15:45:38 +0100 From: Mark Rutland To: Daniel Borkmann Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, syzkaller@googlegroups.com, "David S. Miller" , Alexei Starovoitov , Tejun Heo , Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: EBPF-triggered WARNING at mm/percpu.c:1361 in v4-14-rc2 Message-ID: <20170928144538.GA32487@leverpostej> References: <20170928112727.GA11310@leverpostej> <59CD093A.6030201@iogearbox.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <59CD093A.6030201@iogearbox.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1358 Lines: 34 On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 04:37:46PM +0200, Daniel Borkmann wrote: > On 09/28/2017 01:27 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: > >Hi, > > > >While fuzzing v4.14-rc2 with Syzkaller, I found it was possible to trigger the > >warning at mm/percpu.c:1361, on both arm64 and x86_64. This appears to require > >increasing RLIMIT_MEMLOCK, so to the best of my knowledge this cannot be > >triggered by an unprivileged user. > > > >I've included example splats for both x86_64 and arm64, along with a C > >reproducer, inline below. > > > >It looks like dev_map_alloc() requests a percpu alloction of 32776 bytes, which > >is larger than the maximum supported allocation size of 32768 bytes. > > > >I wonder if it would make more sense to pr_warn() for sizes that are too > >large, so that callers don't have to roll their own checks against > >PCPU_MIN_UNIT_SIZE? > > Perhaps the pr_warn() should be ratelimited; or could there be an > option where we only return NULL, not triggering a warn at all (which > would likely be what callers might do anyway when checking against > PCPU_MIN_UNIT_SIZE and then bailing out)? Those both make sense to me; checking __GFP_NOWARN should be easy enough. Just to check, do you think that dev_map_alloc() should explicitly test the size against PCPU_MIN_UNIT_SIZE, prior to calling pcpu_alloc()? I can spin both patches if so. Thanks, Mark.