Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-145992-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <000000000000daf1e10615e64dcb@google.com> <000000000000ae5d410615fea3bf@google.com>
 <Zh2kuFX9BWOGN1Mo@fedora> <Zh2m5_MfZ45Uk-vD@casper.infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <Zh2m5_MfZ45Uk-vD@casper.infradead.org>
From: Vishal Moola <vishal.moola@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 16:02:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOzc2pzFSkwo21Uba3ys5u8=okYbtA2ptyc5bQJwHoS=H_UMtA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [syzbot] [mm?] KASAN: slab-use-after-free Read in __vma_reservation_common
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: syzbot <syzbot+ad1b592fc4483655438b@syzkaller.appspotmail.com>, 
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, 
	muchun.song@linux.dev, syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 3:15=E2=80=AFPM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org=
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 03:05:44PM -0700, Vishal Moola wrote:
> > Commit 9acad7ba3e25 ("hugetlb: use vmf_anon_prepare() instead of
> > anon_vma_prepare()") may bailout after allocating a folio if we do not
> > hold the mmap lock. When this occurs, vmf_anon_prepare() will release t=
he
> > vma lock. Hugetlb then attempts to call restore_reserve_on_error(),
> > which depends on the vma lock being held.
> >
> > We can move vmf_anon_prepare() prior to the folio allocation in order t=
o
> > avoid calling restore_reserve_on_error() without the vma lock.
>
> But now you're calling vmf_anon_prepare() in the wrong place -- before
> we've determined that we need an anon folio.  So we'll create an
> anon_vma even when we don't need one for this vma.

That's true. Though that can be addressed through something like:

if (!(vma->vm_flags & VM_MAYSHARE)) {
                       ret =3D vmf_anon_prepare(vmf);
                       if (unlikely(ret))
                               goto out;
}

> This is definitely a pre-existing bug which you've exposed by making it
> happen more easily.  Needs a different fix though.

I interpreted the bug report to showcase how restore_reserve_on_error()
depends on the vma lock being held - and vmf_anon_prepare() drops that
lock by the time we get to restore_reserve_on_error(). In this case, this
would address it without reworking restore_reserve_on_error().

There very well could be something completely different going on, however
I have no ideas as to what that may be.