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;
Reply-To: dgilbert@interlog.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] sgl_alloc_order: remove 4 GiB limit, sgl_free()
 warning
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        Bodo Stroesser <bostroesser@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        target-devel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, martin.petersen@oracle.com,
        jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, ddiss@suse.de, bvanassche@acm.org
References: <20210118163006.61659-1-dgilbert@interlog.com>
 <20210118163006.61659-2-dgilbert@interlog.com>
 <20210118182854.GJ4605@ziepe.ca>
 <59707b66-0b6c-b397-82fe-5ad6a6f99ba1@interlog.com>
 <20210118202431.GO4605@ziepe.ca>
 <7f443666-b210-6f99-7b50-6c26d87fa7ca@gmail.com>
 <20210118234818.GP4605@ziepe.ca>
From:   Douglas Gilbert <dgilbert@interlog.com>
Message-ID: <770a562e-52b9-ba93-59d3-1026340bf4f3@interlog.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Jan 2021 20:27:09 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210118234818.GP4605@ziepe.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-CA
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2021-01-18 6:48 p.m., Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 10:22:56PM +0100, Bodo Stroesser wrote:
>> On 18.01.21 21:24, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 03:08:51PM -0500, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
>>>> On 2021-01-18 1:28 p.m., Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 11:30:03AM -0500, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> After several flawed attempts to detect overflow, take the fastest
>>>>>> route by stating as a pre-condition that the 'order' function argument
>>>>>> cannot exceed 16 (2^16 * 4k = 256 MiB).
>>>>>
>>>>> That doesn't help, the point of the overflow check is similar to
>>>>> overflow checks in kcalloc: to prevent the routine from allocating
>>>>> less memory than the caller might assume.
>>>>>
>>>>> For instance ipr_store_update_fw() uses request_firmware() (which is
>>>>> controlled by userspace) to drive the length argument to
>>>>> sgl_alloc_order(). If userpace gives too large a value this will
>>>>> corrupt kernel memory.
>>>>>
>>>>> So this math:
>>>>>
>>>>>      	nent = round_up(length, PAGE_SIZE << order) >> (PAGE_SHIFT + order);
>>>>
>>>> But that check itself overflows if order is too large (e.g. 65).
>>>
>>> I don't reall care about order. It is always controlled by the kernel
>>> and it is fine to just require it be low enough to not
>>> overflow. length is the data under userspace control so math on it
>>> must be checked for overflow.
>>>
>>>> Also note there is another pre-condition statement in that function's
>>>> definition, namely that length cannot be 0.
>>>
>>> I don't see callers checking for that either, if it is true length 0
>>> can't be allowed it should be blocked in the function
>>>
>>> Jason
>>>
>>
>> A already said, I also think there should be a check for length or
>> rather nent overflow.
>>
>> I like the easy to understand check in your proposed code:
>>
>> 	if (length >> (PAGE_SHIFT + order) >= UINT_MAX)
>> 		return NULL;
>>
>>
>> But I don't understand, why you open-coded the nent calculation:
>>
>> 	nent = length >> (PAGE_SHIFT + order);
>> 	if (length & ((1ULL << (PAGE_SHIFT + order)) - 1))
>> 		nent++;
> 
> It is necessary to properly check for overflow, because the easy to
> understand check doesn't prove that round_up will work, only that >>
> results in something that fits in an int and that +1 won't overflow
> the int.
> 
>> Wouldn't it be better to keep the original line instead:
>>
>> 	nent = round_up(length, PAGE_SIZE << order) >> (PAGE_SHIFT + order);
> 
> This can overflow inside the round_up

To protect against the "unsigned long long" length being too big why
not pick a large power of two and if someone can justify a larger
value, they can send a patch.

         if (length > 64ULL * 1024 * 1024 * 1024)
		return NULL;

So 64 GiB or a similar calculation involving PAGE_SIZE. Compiler does
the multiplication and at run time there is only a 64 bit comparison.


I tested 6 one GiB ramdisks on an 8 GiB machine, worked fine until
firefox was started. Then came the OOM killer ...

Doug Gilbert