Re: WARNING in kmalloc_slab (3)

[Dmitry Vyukov]

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 10:22 PM, Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 12:26:32PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 09:18:05AM +0100, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> > On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > On Sun, Dec 03, 2017 at 12:16:08PM -0800, Eric Biggers wrote:
>> > >> Looks like BLKTRACESETUP doesn't limit the '.buf_nr' parameter, allowing anyone
>> > >> who can open a block device to cause an extremely large kmalloc.  Here's a
>> > >> simplified reproducer:
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > There are lots of places which allow people to allocate as much as they
>> > > want.  With Syzcaller, you might want to just hard code a __GFP_NOWARN
>> > > in to disable it.
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Hard code it where?
>>
>> My idea was to just make warn_alloc() a no-op.
>>
>> >
>> > User-controllable allocation are supposed to use __GFP_NOWARN.
>>
>> No that's not right.  What we don't want is unprivileged users to use
>> all the memory and we don't want unprivileged users to spam
>> /var/log/messages.  But you have to have slightly elevated permissions
>> to open block devices right?  The warning is helpful.  Admins should
>> "don't do that" if they don't want the warning.
>
> WARN_ON() should only be used for kernel bugs.  printk can be a different story.
> If it's a "userspace shouldn't do this" kind of thing, then if there is any
> message at all it should be a rate-limited printk that actually explains what
> the problem is, not a random WARN_ON() that can only be interpreted by kernel
> developers.
>
> And yes, the fact that anyone with read access to any block device, even e.g. a
> loop device, can cause the kernel to do an unbounded kmalloc *is* a bug.  It
> needs to have a reasonable limit.  It is not a problem on all systems, but on
> some systems "the admin" might give users read access to some block devices.



#syz fix: kernel/relay.c: limit kmalloc size to KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE