Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm: readahead: handle LARGE input to get_init_ra_size()
From: Randy Dunlap
Date: Tue Dec 22 2020 - 20:51:47 EST
On 12/22/20 5:35 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2020 13:10:51 -0800 Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Add a test to detect if the input ra request size has its high order
>> bit set (is negative when tested as a signed long). This would be a
>> really Huge readahead.
>>
>> If so, WARN() with the value and a stack trace so that we can see
>> where this is happening and then make further corrections later.
>> Then adjust the size value so that it is not so Huge (although
>> this may not be needed).
>
> What motivates this change? Is there any reason to think this can
> happen?
Spotted in the wild:
mr-fox kernel: [ 1974.206977] UBSAN: shift-out-of-bounds in ./include/linux/log2.h:57:13
mr-fox kernel: [ 1974.206980] shift exponent 64 is too large for 64-bit type 'long unsigned int'
Original report:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/c6e5eb81-680f-dd5c-8a81-62041a5ce50c@xxxxxx/
Willy suggested that get_init_ra_size() was being called with a size of 0,
which would cause this (instead of some Huge value), so I made a follow-up
patch that only checks size for 0 and if 0, defaults it to 32 (pages).
---
mm/readahead.c | 6 +++++-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- linux-5.10.1.orig/mm/readahead.c
+++ linux-5.10.1/mm/readahead.c
@@ -310,7 +310,11 @@ void force_page_cache_ra(struct readahea
*/
static unsigned long get_init_ra_size(unsigned long size, unsigned long max)
{
- unsigned long newsize = roundup_pow_of_two(size);
+ unsigned long newsize;
+
+ if (!size)
+ size = 32;
+ newsize = roundup_pow_of_two(size);
if (newsize <= max / 32)
newsize = newsize * 4;
Toralf has only seen this problem one time.
> Also, everything in there *should* be unsigned, because a negative
> readahead is semantically nonsensical. Is our handling of this
> inherently unsigned quantity incorrect somewhere?
>
>> --- linux-5.10.1.orig/mm/readahead.c
>> +++ linux-5.10.1/mm/readahead.c
>>
>> ...
>>
>> @@ -303,14 +304,21 @@ void force_page_cache_ra(struct readahea
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> - * Set the initial window size, round to next power of 2 and square
>> + * Set the initial window size, round to next power of 2
>> * for small size, x 4 for medium, and x 2 for large
>> * for 128k (32 page) max ra
>> * 1-8 page = 32k initial, > 8 page = 128k initial
>> */
>> static unsigned long get_init_ra_size(unsigned long size, unsigned long max)
>> {
>> - unsigned long newsize = roundup_pow_of_two(size);
>> + unsigned long newsize;
>> +
>> + if ((signed long)size < 0) { /* high bit is set: ultra-large ra req */
>> + WARN_ONCE(1, "%s: size=0x%lx\n", __func__, size);
>> + size = -size; /* really only need to flip the high/sign bit */
>> + }
>> +
>> + newsize = roundup_pow_of_two(size);
>
> Is there any way in which userspace can deliberately trigger warning?
> Via sys_readadhead() or procfs tuning or whatever?
>
> I guess that permitting a user-triggerable WARN_ONCE() isn't a huuuuge
> problem - it isn't a DoS if it only triggers a single time. It does
> permit the malicious user to disable future valid warnings, but I don't
> see what incentive there would be for this. But still, it seems
> desirable to avoid it.
Sure. I think that we can drop RFC patches 1/2 and 2/2 and just consider the
other one above.
--
~Randy