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:   Tue, 3 Mar 2020 18:22:37 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To:     David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc:     Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Matthew Garrett <mjg59@google.com>
Subject: Re: SLUB: sysfs lets root force slab order below required minimum,
 causing memory corruption
Message-ID: <202003031820.7A0C4FF302@keescook>
References: <CAG48ez31PP--h6_FzVyfJ4H86QYczAFPdxtJHUEEan+7VJETAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.2003031724400.77561@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2003031724400.77561@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 05:26:14PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Mar 2020, Jann Horn wrote:
> 
> > Hi!
> > 
> > FYI, I noticed that if you do something like the following as root,
> > the system blows up pretty quickly with error messages about stuff
> > like corrupt freelist pointers because SLUB actually allows root to
> > force a page order that is smaller than what is required to store a
> > single object:
> > 
> >     echo 0 > /sys/kernel/slab/task_struct/order
> > 
> > The other SLUB debugging options, like red_zone, also look kind of
> > suspicious with regards to races (either racing with other writes to
> > the SLUB debugging options, or with object allocations).
> > 
> 
> Thanks for the report, Jann.  To address the most immediate issue, 
> allowing a smaller order than allowed, I think we'd need something like 
> this.
> 
> I can propose it as a formal patch if nobody has any alternate 
> suggestions?
> ---
>  mm/slub.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -3598,7 +3598,7 @@ static int calculate_sizes(struct kmem_cache *s, int forced_order)
>  	 */
>  	size = ALIGN(size, s->align);
>  	s->size = size;
> -	if (forced_order >= 0)
> +	if (forced_order >= slab_order(size, 1, MAX_ORDER, 1))
>  		order = forced_order;
>  	else
>  		order = calculate_order(size);

Seems reasonable!

For the race concerns, should this logic just make sure the resulting
order can never shrink? Or does it need much stronger atomicity?

-- 
Kees Cook