Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B716C282DC for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 09:54:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 736DC21773 for ; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 09:54:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728108AbfDQJyn (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Apr 2019 05:54:43 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:42070 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727013AbfDQJyn (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Apr 2019 05:54:43 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5637374; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 02:54:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.196.75] (e110467-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.196.75]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A992B3F68F; Wed, 17 Apr 2019 02:54:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] crypto: testmgr - allocate buffers with __GFP_COMP To: Russell King - ARM Linux admin , Matthew Wilcox Cc: Kees Cook , Rik van Riel , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Eric Biggers , Linux-MM , linux-security-module , Geert Uytterhoeven , linux-crypto , Dmitry Vyukov , Laura Abbott , Linux ARM , Herbert Xu References: <20190411192607.GD225654@gmail.com> <20190411192827.72551-1-ebiggers@kernel.org> <20190415022412.GA29714@bombadil.infradead.org> <20190415024615.f765e7oagw26ezam@gondor.apana.org.au> <20190416021852.GA18616@bombadil.infradead.org> <20190417040822.GB7751@bombadil.infradead.org> <20190417080919.54wywpzrt3psn4vj@shell.armlinux.org.uk> From: Robin Murphy Message-ID: <0ea51c23-d285-25c3-80d6-f3c0045ee325@arm.com> Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2019 10:54:39 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190417080919.54wywpzrt3psn4vj@shell.armlinux.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-crypto-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org On 17/04/2019 09:09, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > 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 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. 'git grep alloc_pages_exact' suggests it's not historical yet... Robin.