From: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>
To: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: 42.hyeyoo@gmail.com, cl@linux.com, hailong.liu@oppo.com,
hch@infradead.org, iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com, lstoakes@gmail.com,
mhocko@suse.com, penberg@kernel.org, rientjes@google.com,
roman.gushchin@linux.dev, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
urezki@gmail.com, v-songbaohua@oppo.com, vbabka@suse.cz,
virtualization@lists.linux.dev, Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH v2 4/4] mm: prohibit NULL deference exposed for unsupported non-blockable __GFP_NOFAIL
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 12:01:55 +1200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240731000155.109583-5-21cnbao@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240731000155.109583-1-21cnbao@gmail.com>
From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
When users allocate memory with the __GFP_NOFAIL flag, they might
incorrectly use it alongside GFP_ATOMIC, GFP_NOWAIT, etc. This kind
of non-blockable __GFP_NOFAIL is not supported and is pointless. If
we attempt and still fail to allocate memory for these users, we have
two choices:
1. We could busy-loop and hope that some other direct reclamation or
kswapd rescues the current process. However, this is unreliable
and could ultimately lead to hard or soft lockups, which might not
be well supported by some architectures.
2. We could use BUG_ON to trigger a reliable system crash, avoiding
exposing NULL dereference.
This patch chooses the second option because the first is unreliable. Even
if the process incorrectly using __GFP_NOFAIL is sometimes rescued, the
long latency might be unacceptable, especially considering that misusing
GFP_ATOMIC and __GFP_NOFAIL is likely to occur in atomic contexts with
strict timing requirements.
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@gmail.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>
Cc: Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Kees Cook <kees@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>
---
mm/page_alloc.c | 10 +++++-----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index cc179c3e68df..ed1bd8f595bd 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -4439,11 +4439,11 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
*/
if (gfp_mask & __GFP_NOFAIL) {
/*
- * All existing users of the __GFP_NOFAIL are blockable, so warn
- * of any new users that actually require GFP_NOWAIT
+ * All existing users of the __GFP_NOFAIL are blockable
+ * otherwise we introduce a busy loop with inside the page
+ * allocator from non-sleepable contexts
*/
- if (WARN_ON_ONCE_GFP(!can_direct_reclaim, gfp_mask))
- goto fail;
+ BUG_ON(!can_direct_reclaim);
/*
* PF_MEMALLOC request from this context is rather bizarre
@@ -4474,7 +4474,7 @@ __alloc_pages_slowpath(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
cond_resched();
goto retry;
}
-fail:
+
warn_alloc(gfp_mask, ac->nodemask,
"page allocation failure: order:%u", order);
got_pg:
--
2.34.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-07-31 0:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-07-31 0:01 [PATCH v2 0/4] mm: clarify nofail memory allocation Barry Song
2024-07-31 0:01 ` [PATCH RFT v2 1/4] vpda: try to fix the potential crash due to misusing __GFP_NOFAIL Barry Song
2024-07-31 3:09 ` Jason Wang
2024-07-31 3:15 ` Barry Song
2024-07-31 3:58 ` Jason Wang
2024-07-31 4:11 ` Barry Song
2024-07-31 4:13 ` Jason Wang
2024-07-31 5:05 ` Barry Song
2024-07-31 10:20 ` Tetsuo Handa
2024-08-01 2:37 ` Jason Wang
2024-08-05 1:32 ` Barry Song
2024-08-05 8:19 ` Jason Wang
2024-08-01 2:30 ` Jason Wang
2024-07-31 0:01 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] mm: Document __GFP_NOFAIL must be blockable Barry Song
2024-07-31 10:18 ` Vlastimil Babka
2024-07-31 16:26 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-31 0:01 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] mm: BUG_ON to avoid NULL deference while __GFP_NOFAIL fails Barry Song
2024-07-31 7:11 ` Michal Hocko
2024-07-31 10:29 ` Vlastimil Babka
2024-07-31 10:44 ` Tetsuo Handa
2024-07-31 10:48 ` Vlastimil Babka
2024-07-31 10:57 ` Barry Song
2024-07-31 16:28 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-31 0:01 ` Barry Song [this message]
2024-07-31 7:15 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] mm: prohibit NULL deference exposed for unsupported non-blockable __GFP_NOFAIL Michal Hocko
2024-07-31 10:55 ` Vlastimil Babka
2024-07-31 11:08 ` Barry Song
2024-07-31 11:31 ` Michal Hocko
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=20240731000155.109583-5-21cnbao@gmail.com \
--to=21cnbao@gmail.com \
--cc=42.hyeyoo@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=hailong.liu@oppo.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=kees@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lstoakes@gmail.com \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=urezki@gmail.com \
--cc=v-songbaohua@oppo.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux.dev \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).