All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@oracle.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Li Qiong <liqiong@nfschina.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@gentwo.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: slub: avoid deref of free pointer in sanity checks if object is invalid
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2025 04:55:06 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aIPhGvYgF0oC8kDa@hyeyoo> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aIO6m2C8K4SrJ6mp@casper.infradead.org>

On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 06:10:51PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 06:47:01PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 7/25/25 08:49, Li Qiong wrote:
> > > For debugging, object_err() prints free pointer of the object.
> > > However, if check_valid_pointer() returns false for a object,
> > > dereferncing `object + s->offset` can lead to a crash. Therefore,
> > > print the object's address in such cases.
> 
> I don't know where this patch came from (was it cc'd to linux-mm? i
> don't see it)

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250725024854.1201926-1-liqiong@nfschina.com

Looks like it's rejected by linux-mm for some reason..

> > > +/*
> > > + * object - should be a valid object.
> > > + * check_valid_pointer(s, slab, object) should be true.
> > > + */
> 
> This comment is very confusing.  It tries to ape kernel-doc style,
> but if it were kernel-doc, the word before the hyphen should be the name
> of the function, and it isn't.  If we did use kernel-doc for this, we'd
> use @object to denote that we're documenting the argument.

Yes, the comment is indeed confusing and agree with your point.

When I suggested it I expected adding something like:

  /* print_trailer() may deref invalid freepointer if object pointer is invalid */
  WARN_ON_ONCE(!check_valid_pointer(s, slab, object));

to be added to object_err().

> But I don't see the need to pretend this is related to kernel-doc.  This
> would be better:
>
> /*
>  * 'object' must be a valid pointer into this slab.  ie
>  * check_valid_pointer() would return true
>  */
> 
> I'm sure better wording for that is possible ...
>
> > >  	if (!check_valid_pointer(s, slab, object)) {
> > > -		object_err(s, slab, object, "Freelist Pointer check fails");
> > > +		slab_err(s, slab, "Invalid object pointer 0x%p", object);
> > >  		return 0;
> 
> No, the error message is now wrong.  It's not an object, it's the
> freelist pointer.

Because it's the object is about to be allocated, it will look like
this:

  object pointer -> obj: [ garbage ][   freelist pointer   ][ garbage ]

SLUB uses check_valid_pointer() to check either 1) freelist pointer of
an object is valid (e.g. in check_object()), or 2) an object pointer
points to a valid address (e.g. in free_debug_processing()).

In this case it's an object pointer, not a freelist pointer.
Or am I misunderstanding something?

> 		slab_err(s, slab, "Invalid freelist pointer %p", object);
> 
> (the 0x%p is wrong because it will print 0x twice)

"0x%p" is used all over the place in mm/slub.c.

In the printk documentation [1]:
> Plain Pointers
> %p      abcdef12 or 00000000abcdef12

0x%p should be 0xabcdef12 or 0x00000000abcdef12, no?

[1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/next/core-api/printk-formats.html#printk-specifiers

> But I think there are even more things wrong here.  Like slab_err() is
> not nerely as severe as slab_bug(), which is what used to be called.

What do you mean by slab_err() is not as severe as slab_bug()?
Both object_err() and slab_err() add a taint and trigger a WARNING.

> And object_err() adds a taint, which this skips.

adding a taint is done via
slab_err()->__slab_err()->add_taint()

-- 
Cheers,
Harry / Hyeonggon


  parent reply	other threads:[~2025-07-25 19:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-07-25  2:48 [PATCH] mm: slub: fix dereference invalid pointer in alloc_consistency_checks Li Qiong
2025-07-25  2:52 ` kernel test robot
2025-07-25  4:01 ` Harry Yoo
2025-07-25  5:46   ` liqiong
2025-07-25  6:49 ` [PATCH v2] mm: slub: avoid deref of free pointer in sanity checks if object is invalid Li Qiong
2025-07-25 16:47   ` Vlastimil Babka
2025-07-25 17:10     ` Matthew Wilcox
2025-07-25 19:22       ` Matthew Wilcox
2025-07-25 22:49         ` Harry Yoo
2025-07-25 19:55       ` Harry Yoo [this message]
2025-07-25 23:00         ` Harry Yoo
2025-07-28  2:06           ` liqiong
2025-07-28  3:29             ` Matthew Wilcox
2025-07-28  5:24               ` Harry Yoo
2025-07-28  9:08                 ` liqiong
2025-07-28 13:38                   ` Harry Yoo
2025-07-28  8:52     ` Vlastimil Babka

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=aIPhGvYgF0oC8kDa@hyeyoo \
    --to=harry.yoo@oracle.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cl@gentwo.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=liqiong@nfschina.com \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --cc=willy@infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.