Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at mm/hugetlb.c:LINE!
To:     Colin Walters <walters@verbum.org>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc:     syzbot <syzbot+d6ec23007e951dadf3de@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
References: <000000000000b4684e05a2968ca6@google.com>
 <aa7812b8-60ae-8578-40db-e71ad766b4d3@oracle.com>
 <CAJfpegtVca6H1JPW00OF-7sCwpomMCo=A2qr5K=9uGKEGjEp3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <bb232cfa-5965-42d0-88cf-46d13f7ebda3@www.fastmail.com>
From:   Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <9a56a79a-88ed-9ff4-115e-ec169cba5c0b@oracle.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 May 2020 17:35:10 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <bb232cfa-5965-42d0-88cf-46d13f7ebda3@www.fastmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 5/18/20 4:41 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
> 
> On Tue, May 12, 2020, at 11:04 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> 
>>> However, in this syzbot test case the 'file' is in an overlayfs filesystem
>>> created as follows:
>>>
>>> mkdir("./file0", 000)                   = 0
>>> mount(NULL, "./file0", "hugetlbfs", MS_MANDLOCK|MS_POSIXACL, NULL) = 0
>>> chdir("./file0")                        = 0
>>> mkdir("./file1", 000)                   = 0
>>> mkdir("./bus", 000)                     = 0
>>> mkdir("./file0", 000)                   = 0
>>> mount("\177ELF\2\1\1", "./bus", "overlay", 0, "lowerdir=./bus,workdir=./file1,u"...) = 0
> 
> Is there any actual valid use case for mounting an overlayfs on top of hugetlbfs?  I can't think of one.  Why isn't the response to this to instead only allow mounting overlayfs on top of basically a set of whitelisted filesystems?
> 

I can not think of a use case.  I'll let Miklos comment on adding whitelist
capability to overlayfs.

IMO - This BUG/report revealed two issues.  First is the BUG by mmap'ing
a hugetlbfs file on overlayfs.  The other is that core mmap code will skip
any filesystem specific get_unmapped area routine if on a union/overlay.
My patch fixes both, but if we go with a whitelist approach and don't allow
hugetlbfs I think we still need to address the filesystem specific
get_unmapped area issue.  That is easy enough to do by adding a routine to
overlayfs which calls the routine for the underlying fs.

-- 
Mike Kravetz