Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <000000000000bb7f1c05da29b601@google.com> <00000000000010b7d305e08837c8@google.com>
 <YpnqpMYcokTwCB6u@smile.fi.intel.com> <Ypor265BTdnmgwpM@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <YpouRmanvCQeKA3S@kroah.com> <Ypow1LRZ3Hau36ci@rowland.harvard.edu>
 <Ypoyy/stICFdHauR@kroah.com> <CACT4Y+bBWrLRwiowaWk8o4+XAtCHxxJiEQfiSkgM3BDut9atAw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220606123839.GW2146@kadam> <CACT4Y+Y_kg1J00iBL=sMr5AP7U4RXuBizusvQG52few2NcJ6dg@mail.gmail.com>
 <YqAWpMdi4o1IQslu@casper.infradead.org> <CACT4Y+anOkc=-A5=3EBrvmu+AJ+f7CcrOfWp85hEu+CHkS3BGw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACT4Y+anOkc=-A5=3EBrvmu+AJ+f7CcrOfWp85hEu+CHkS3BGw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Jun 2022 10:24:07 +0200
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+YM8__WOVAQcpNBNxneHCp5dv2tF7ySDpivRJ-efGNCUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] general protection fault in __device_attach
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        syzbot <syzbot+dd3c97de244683533381@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>,
        hdanton@sina.com, lenb@kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com,
        rafael@kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
        syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 8 Jun 2022 at 10:20, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 09:15:09AM +0200, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> > > On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 at 14:39, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jun 04, 2022 at 10:32:46AM +0200, 'Dmitry Vyukov' via syzkaller-bugs wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 3 Jun 2022 at 18:12, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But again, is this a "real and able to be triggered from userspace"
> > > > > > problem, or just fault-injection-induced?
> > > > >
> > > > > Then this is something to fix in the fault injection subsystem.
> > > > > Testing systems shouldn't be reporting false positives.
> > > > > What allocations cannot fail in real life? Is it <=page_size?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Apparently in 2014, anything less than *EIGHT?!!* pages succeeded!
> > > >
> > > > https://lwn.net/Articles/627419/
> > > >
> > > > I have been on the look out since that article and never seen anyone
> > > > mention it changing.  I think we should ignore that and say that
> > > > anything over PAGE_SIZE can fail.  Possibly we could go smaller than
> > > > PAGE_SIZE...
> > >
> > > +linux-mm for GFP expertise re what allocations cannot possibly fail
> > > and should be excluded from fault injection.
> > >
> > > Interesting, thanks for the link.
> > >
> > > PAGE_SIZE looks like a good start. Once we have the predicate in
> > > place, we can refine it later when/if we have more inputs.
> > >
> > > But I wonder about GFP flags. They definitely have some impact on allocations.
> > > If GFP_ACCOUNT is set, all allocations can fail, right?
> > > If GFP_DMA/DMA32 is set, allocations can fail, right? What about other zones?
> > > If GFP_NORETRY is set, allocations can fail?
> > > What about GFP_NOMEMALLOC and GFP_ATOMIC?
> > > What about GFP_IO/GFP_FS/GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM/GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM? At
> > > least some of these need to be set for allocations to not fail? Which
> > > ones?
> > > Any other flags are required to be set/unset for allocations to not fail?
> >
> > I'm not the expert on page allocation, but ...
> >
> > I don't think GFP_ACCOUNT makes allocations fail.  It might make reclaim
> > happen from within that cgroup, and it might cause an OOM kill for
> > something in that cgroup.  But I don't think it makes a (low order)
> > allocation more likely to fail.
>
> Interesting.
> I was thinking of some malicious specifically crafted configurations
> with very low limit and particular pattern of allocations. Also what
> if there is just 1 process (current)? Is it possible to kill and
> reclaim the current process when a thread is stuck in the middle of
> the kernel on a kmalloc?
> Also I see e.g.:
>         Tasks with the OOM protection (oom_score_adj set to -1000)
>         are treated as an exception and are never killed.
>
> I am not an expert on this either, but I think it may be hard to fight
> with a specifically crafted attack.
>
>
> > There's usually less memory avilable in DMA/DMA32 zones, but we have
> > so few allocations from those zones, I question the utility of focusing
> > testing on those allocations.
> >
> > GFP_ATOMIC allows access to emergency pools, so I would say _less_ likely
> > to fail.  KSWAPD_RECLAIM has no effect on whether _this_ allocation
> > succeeds or fails; it kicks kswapd to do reclaim, rather than doing
> > reclaim directly.  DIRECT_RECLAIM definitely makes allocations more likely
> > to succeed.  GFP_FS allows (direct) reclaim to happen from filesystems.
> > GFP_IO allows IO to start (ie writeback can start) in order to clean
> > dirty memory.
> >
> > Anyway, I hope somebody who knows the page allocator better than I do
> > can say smarter things than this.  Even better if they can put it into
> > Documentation/ somewhere ;-)
>
> Even better to put this into code as a predicate function that fault
> injection will use. It will also serve as precise up-to-date
> documentation.

Also at the end of kmalloc as:
WARN_ON(!ret && !cant_fail(size, gfp));
!

> > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/core-api/memory-allocation.html
> > exists but isn't quite enough to answer this question.