Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sun, 24 Feb 2019 19:17:45 -0800 (PST)
From:   David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
To:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
cc:     Jing Xiangfeng <jingxiangfeng@huawei.com>, mhocko@kernel.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, hughd@google.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com, aarcange@redhat.com,
        kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm/hugetlb: Fix unsigned overflow in
 __nr_hugepages_store_common()
In-Reply-To: <388cbbf5-7086-1d04-4c49-049021504b9d@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1902241913000.34632@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
References: <1550885529-125561-1-git-send-email-jingxiangfeng@huawei.com> <388cbbf5-7086-1d04-4c49-049021504b9d@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 24 Feb 2019, Mike Kravetz wrote:

> > User can change a node specific hugetlb count. i.e.
> > /sys/devices/system/node/node1/hugepages/hugepages-2048kB/nr_hugepages
> > the calculated value of count is a total number of huge pages. It could
> > be overflow when a user entering a crazy high value. If so, the total
> > number of huge pages could be a small value which is not user expect.
> > We can simply fix it by setting count to ULONG_MAX, then it goes on. This
> > may be more in line with user's intention of allocating as many huge pages
> > as possible.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jing Xiangfeng <jingxiangfeng@huawei.com>
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Acked-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
> 
> > ---
> >  mm/hugetlb.c | 7 +++++++
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> > index afef616..6688894 100644
> > --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> > +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> > @@ -2423,7 +2423,14 @@ static ssize_t __nr_hugepages_store_common(bool obey_mempolicy,
> >  		 * per node hstate attribute: adjust count to global,
> >  		 * but restrict alloc/free to the specified node.
> >  		 */
> > +		unsigned long old_count = count;
> >  		count += h->nr_huge_pages - h->nr_huge_pages_node[nid];
> > +		/*
> > +		 * If user specified count causes overflow, set to
> > +		 * largest possible value.
> > +		 */
> > +		if (count < old_count)
> > +			count = ULONG_MAX;
> >  		init_nodemask_of_node(nodes_allowed, nid);
> >  	} else
> >  		nodes_allowed = &node_states[N_MEMORY];
> > 

Looks like this fixes the overflow issue, but isn't there already a 
possible underflow since we don't hold hugetlb_lock?  Even if 
count == 0, what prevents h->nr_huge_pages_node[nid] being greater than 
h->nr_huge_pages here?  I think the per hstate values need to be read with 
READ_ONCE() and stored on the stack to do any sane bounds checking.