Date:   Wed, 17 Apr 2019 09:09:19 +0100
From:   Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        linux-security-module <linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        linux-crypto <linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org>,
        Laura Abbott <labbott@redhat.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto: testmgr - allocate buffers with __GFP_COMP
Message-ID: <20190417080919.54wywpzrt3psn4vj@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
References: <20190411192607.GD225654@gmail.com>
 <20190411192827.72551-1-ebiggers@kernel.org>
 <CAGXu5jJ8k7fP5Vb=ygmQ0B45GfrK2PeaV04bPWmcZ6Vb+swgyA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190415022412.GA29714@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <20190415024615.f765e7oagw26ezam@gondor.apana.org.au>
 <20190416021852.GA18616@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <CAGXu5jKaVB=bTJCBWhsxAny7-OkzXQ+8KCd5O+_-7hKcJFiqKw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190417040822.GB7751@bombadil.infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190417040822.GB7751@bombadil.infradead.org>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 09:08:22PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 10:14:51PM -0500, Kees Cook wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 9:18 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > I agree; if the crypto code is never going to try to go from the address of
> > > a byte in the allocation back to the head page, then there's no need to
> > > specify GFP_COMP.
> > >
> > > But that leaves us in the awkward situation where
> > > HARDENED_USERCOPY_PAGESPAN does need to be able to figure out whether
> > > 'ptr + n - 1' lies within the same allocation as ptr.  Without using
> > > a compound page, there's no indication in the VM structures that these
> > > two pages were allocated as part of the same allocation.
> > >
> > > We could force all multi-page allocations to be compound pages if
> > > HARDENED_USERCOPY_PAGESPAN is enabled, but I worry that could break
> > > something.  We could make it catch fewer problems by succeeding if the
> > > page is not compound.  I don't know, these all seem like bad choices
> > > to me.
> > 
> > If GFP_COMP is _not_ the correct signal about adjacent pages being
> > part of the same allocation, then I agree: we need to drop this check
> > entirely from PAGESPAN. Is there anything else that indicates this
> > property? (Or where might we be able to store that info?)
> 
> As far as I know, the page allocator does not store size information
> anywhere, unless you use GFP_COMP.  That's why you have to pass
> the 'order' to free_pages() and __free_pages().  It's also why
> alloc_pages_exact() works (follow all the way into split_page()).
> 
> > There are other pagespan checks, though, so those could stay. But I'd
> > really love to gain page allocator allocation size checking ...
> 
> I think that's a great idea, but I'm not sure how you'll be able to
> do that.

However, we have had code (maybe historically now) that has allocated
a higher order page and then handed back pages that it doesn't need -
for example, when the code requires multiple contiguous pages but does
not require a power-of-2 size of contiguous pages.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up