Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <8abfed2c-2499-b2da-1e06-ecc188f7c7b0@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 9 Sep 2022 22:21:41 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.2.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/slub: fix to return errno if kmalloc() fails
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>, Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jaegeuk@kernel.org,
        Chao Yu <chao.yu@oppo.com>, stable@kernel.org,
        syzbot+81684812ea68216e08c5@syzkaller.appspotmail.com,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
References: <20220830141009.150075-1-chao@kernel.org>
 <BAC9CE6A-5873-429F-ACE2-E0A9E507D807@linux.dev>
 <dbef29b2-ab0a-c3df-638c-381916a0d15a@kernel.org>
 <Yxucs30FNkbWQHVh@casper.infradead.org>
Content-Language: en-US
From:   "Vlastimil Babka (SUSE)" <vbabka@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <Yxucs30FNkbWQHVh@casper.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 9/9/22 22:06, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 11:25:08PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) wrote:
>> > I tend to agree with you. A mount operation shouldn’t panic the
>> > kernel.
>> 
>> Hmm kmalloc(64) shouldn't normally due that due to the the underlying page
>> allocation falling into the "too small to fail" category, wonder if
>> syzkaller was doing anything special here?
> 
> Here's the repro:
> 
> https://syzkaller.appspot.com/x/repro.c?x=17cd7fa3080000
> 
> you can see it does:
> 
>   fd = open("/proc/thread-self/fail-nth", O_RDWR);
>   if (fd == -1)
>     exit(1);
>   char buf[16];
>   sprintf(buf, "%d", nth);
>   if (write(fd, buf, strlen(buf)) != (ssize_t)strlen(buf))
> 
> so this is the kind of stupid nitpicky bug that we shouldn't be
> reporting, let alone fixing, IMO.

Ah, thanks.

Well I'm ok with eventually removing all such BUG_ONs including what
Christophe Jaillet suggested, but it certainly isn't urgent nor deserves Cc:
stable then.