Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-170032-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Mon, 6 May 2024 07:59:11 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@suse.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
	Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@gmail.com>,
	Alexander Potapenko <glider@google.com>,
	Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@rivosinc.com>,
	syzbot+41bbfdb8d41003d12c0f@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] mm,page_owner: Fix refcount imbalance
Message-ID: <202405060754.4405F8402F@keescook>
References: <20240404070702.2744-1-osalvador@suse.de>
 <20240404070702.2744-3-osalvador@suse.de>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240404070702.2744-3-osalvador@suse.de>

On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 09:07:00AM +0200, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> Current code does not contemplate scenarios were an allocation and
> free operation on the same pages do not handle it in the same amount
> at once.
> To give an example, page_alloc_exact(), where we will allocate a page
> of enough order to stafisfy the size request, but we will free the
> remainings right away.
> 
> In the above example, we will increment the stack_record refcount
> only once, but we will decrease it the same number of times as number
> of unused pages we have to free.
> This will lead to a warning because of refcount imbalance.
> 
> Fix this by recording the number of base pages in the refcount field.
> 
> Reported-by: syzbot+41bbfdb8d41003d12c0f@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/00000000000090e8ff0613eda0e5@google.com
> Fixes: 217b2119b9e2 ("mm,page_owner: implement the tracking of the stacks count")

Does this also fix this?
https://lore.kernel.org/all/202405061514.23fedba1-oliver.sang@intel.com/

This is a report of the backtrace changing, but the warning was
pre-existing.

> [...]
> -static void dec_stack_record_count(depot_stack_handle_t handle)
> +static void dec_stack_record_count(depot_stack_handle_t handle,
> +				   int nr_base_pages)
>  {
>  	struct stack_record *stack_record = __stack_depot_get_stack_record(handle);
>  
> -	if (stack_record)
> -		refcount_dec(&stack_record->count);
> +	if (!stack_record)
> +		return;
> +
> +	if (refcount_sub_and_test(nr_base_pages, &stack_record->count))
> +		pr_warn("%s: refcount went to 0 for %u handle\n", __func__,
> +			handle);

This pr_warn() isn't needed: refcount will very loudly say the same
thing. :)

-- 
Kees Cook