On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 7:38 PM Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2023/12/27 14:25, Barry Song wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 4:51 PM Chengming Zhou > > <zhouchengming@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On 2023/12/27 08:23, Nhat Pham wrote: > >>> On Tue, Dec 26, 2023 at 3:30 PM Chris Li <chrisl@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Again, sorry I was looking at the decompression side rather than the > >>>> compression side. The compression side does not even offer a safe > >>>> version of the compression function. > >>>> That seems to be dangerous. It seems for now we should make the zswap > >>>> roll back to 2 page buffer until we have a safe way to do compression > >>>> without overwriting the output buffers. > >>> > >>> Unfortunately, I think this is the way - at least until we rework the > >>> crypto/compression API (if that's even possible?). > >>> I still think the 2 page buffer is dumb, but it is what it is :( > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I think it's a bug in `scomp_acomp_comp_decomp()`, which doesn't use > >> the caller passed "src" and "dst" scatterlist. Instead, it uses its own > >> per-cpu "scomp_scratch", which have 128KB src and dst. > >> > >> When compression done, it uses the output req->dlen to copy scomp_scratch->dst > >> to our dstmem, which has only one page now, so this problem happened. > >> > >> I still don't know why the alg->compress(src, slen, dst, &dlen) doesn't > >> check the dlen? It seems an obvious bug, right? > >> > >> As for this problem in `scomp_acomp_comp_decomp()`, this patch below > >> should fix it. I will set up a few tests to check later. > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> diff --git a/crypto/scompress.c b/crypto/scompress.c > >> index 442a82c9de7d..e654a120ae5a 100644 > >> --- a/crypto/scompress.c > >> +++ b/crypto/scompress.c > >> @@ -117,6 +117,7 @@ static int scomp_acomp_comp_decomp(struct acomp_req *req, int dir) > >> struct crypto_scomp *scomp = *tfm_ctx; > >> void **ctx = acomp_request_ctx(req); > >> struct scomp_scratch *scratch; > >> + unsigned int dlen; > >> int ret; > >> > >> if (!req->src || !req->slen || req->slen > SCOMP_SCRATCH_SIZE) > >> @@ -128,6 +129,8 @@ static int scomp_acomp_comp_decomp(struct acomp_req *req, int dir) > >> if (!req->dlen || req->dlen > SCOMP_SCRATCH_SIZE) > >> req->dlen = SCOMP_SCRATCH_SIZE; > >> > >> + dlen = req->dlen; > >> + > >> scratch = raw_cpu_ptr(&scomp_scratch); > >> spin_lock(&scratch->lock); > >> > >> @@ -145,6 +148,9 @@ static int scomp_acomp_comp_decomp(struct acomp_req *req, int dir) > >> ret = -ENOMEM; > >> goto out; > >> } > >> + } else if (req->dlen > dlen) { > >> + ret = -ENOMEM; > >> + goto out; > >> } > > > > This can't fix the problem as crypto_scomp_compress() has written overflow data. > > No, crypto_scomp_compress() writes to its own scomp_scratch->dst memory, then copy > to our dstmem. Thanks, I got your point as you were using scomp. I used to depend on acomp, so that wasn't the case. > > > > > BTW, in many cases, hardware-accelerators drivers/crypto can do compression and > > decompression by off-loading CPU; > > we won't have a chance to let hardware check the dst buffer size. so > > giving the dst buffer > > with enough length to the hardware's dma engine is the right way. I > > mean, we shouldn't > > change dst from 2pages to 1page. > > But how do we know 2 pages is enough for any compression algorithm? > > Thanks. > > > > >> scatterwalk_map_and_copy(scratch->dst, req->dst, 0, req->dlen, > >> 1); Thanks Barry