On 5/28/19 3:47 PM, Kees Cook wrote: > On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 09:53:33AM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote: >> On 25/05/2019 17.33, Randy Dunlap wrote: >>> On 3/13/19 7:53 PM, Kees Cook wrote: >>>> Hi! >>>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 2:29 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> This is v5.0-11053-gebc551f2b8f9, MAR-12 around 4:00pm PT. >>>>> >>>>> In the first test_kmalloc() in test_overflow_allocation(): >>>>> >>>>> [54375.073895] test_overflow: ok: (s64)(0 << 63) == 0 >>>>> [54375.074228] WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 5462 at ../mm/page_alloc.c:4584 __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x33f/0x540 >>>>> [...] >>>>> [54375.079236] ---[ end trace 754acb68d8d1a1cb ]--- >>>>> [54375.079313] test_overflow: kmalloc detected saturation >>>> >>>> Yup! This is expected and operating as intended: it is exercising the >>>> allocator's detection of insane allocation sizes. :) >>>> >>>> If we want to make it less noisy, perhaps we could add a global flag >>>> the allocators could check before doing their WARNs? >>>> >>>> -Kees >>> >>> I didn't like that global flag idea. I also don't like the kernel becoming >>> tainted by this test. >> >> Me neither. Can't we pass __GFP_NOWARN from the testcases, perhaps with >> a module parameter to opt-in to not pass that flag? That way one can >> make the overflow module built-in (and thus run at boot) without >> automatically tainting the kernel. >> >> The vmalloc cases do not take gfp_t, would they still cause a warning? > > They still warn, but they don't seem to taint. I.e. this patch: > > diff --git a/lib/test_overflow.c b/lib/test_overflow.c > index fc680562d8b6..c922f0d86181 100644 > --- a/lib/test_overflow.c > +++ b/lib/test_overflow.c > @@ -486,11 +486,12 @@ static int __init test_overflow_shift(void) > * Deal with the various forms of allocator arguments. See comments above > * the DEFINE_TEST_ALLOC() instances for mapping of the "bits". > */ > -#define alloc010(alloc, arg, sz) alloc(sz, GFP_KERNEL) > -#define alloc011(alloc, arg, sz) alloc(sz, GFP_KERNEL, NUMA_NO_NODE) > +#define alloc_GFP (GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOWARN) > +#define alloc010(alloc, arg, sz) alloc(sz, alloc_GFP) > +#define alloc011(alloc, arg, sz) alloc(sz, alloc_GFP, NUMA_NO_NODE) > #define alloc000(alloc, arg, sz) alloc(sz) > #define alloc001(alloc, arg, sz) alloc(sz, NUMA_NO_NODE) > -#define alloc110(alloc, arg, sz) alloc(arg, sz, GFP_KERNEL) > +#define alloc110(alloc, arg, sz) alloc(arg, sz, alloc_GFP | __GFP_NOWARN) > #define free0(free, arg, ptr) free(ptr) > #define free1(free, arg, ptr) free(arg, ptr) > > will remove the tainting behavior but is still a bit "noisy". I can't > find a way to pass __GFP_NOWARN to a vmalloc-based allocation, though. > > Randy, is removing taint sufficient for you? Yes it is. Thanks. >> BTW, I noticed that the 'wrap to 8K' depends on 64 bit and >> pagesize==4096; for 32 bit the result is 20K, while if the pagesize is >> 64K one gets 128K and 512K for 32/64 bit size_t, respectively. Don't >> know if that's a problem, but it's easy enough to make it independent of >> pagesize (just make it 9*4096 explicitly), and if we use 5 instead of 9 >> it also becomes independent of sizeof(size_t) (wrapping to 16K). > > Ah! Yes, all excellent points. I've adjusted that too now. I'll send > the result to Andrew. > > Thanks! > -- ~Randy
