On Mon, 12. Aug 18:16, Will Deacon wrote:
> Commit 8c61291fd850 ("mm: fix incorrect vbq reference in
> purge_fragmented_block") extended the 'vmap_block' structure to contain
> a 'cpu' field which is set at allocation time to the id of the
> initialising CPU.
>
> When a new 'vmap_block' is being instantiated by new_vmap_block(), the
> partially initialised structure is added to the local 'vmap_block_queue'
> xarray before the 'cpu' field has been initialised. If another CPU is
> concurrently walking the xarray (e.g. via vm_unmap_aliases()), then it
> may perform an out-of-bounds access to the remote queue thanks to an
> uninitialised index.
>
> This has been observed as UBSAN errors in Android:
>
> | Internal error: UBSAN: array index out of bounds: 00000000f2005512 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
> |
> | Call trace:
> | purge_fragmented_block+0x204/0x21c
> | _vm_unmap_aliases+0x170/0x378
> | vm_unmap_aliases+0x1c/0x28
> | change_memory_common+0x1dc/0x26c
> | set_memory_ro+0x18/0x24
> | module_enable_ro+0x98/0x238
> | do_init_module+0x1b0/0x310
>
> Move the initialisation of 'vb->cpu' in new_vmap_block() ahead of the
> addition to the xarray.
>
> Cc: Zhaoyang Huang <zhaoyang.huang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Hailong.Liu <hailong.liu@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Baoquan He <bhe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Fixes: 8c61291fd850 ("mm: fix incorrect vbq reference in purge_fragmented_block")
> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> I _think_ the insertion into the free list is ok, as the vb shouldn't be
> considered for purging if it's clean. It would be great if somebody more
> familiar with this code could confirm either way, however.
>
> mm/vmalloc.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> index 6b783baf12a1..64c0a2c8a73c 100644
> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> @@ -2626,6 +2626,7 @@ static void *new_vmap_block(unsigned int order, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> vb->dirty_max = 0;
> bitmap_set(vb->used_map, 0, (1UL << order));
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&vb->free_list);
> + vb->cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
>
> xa = addr_to_vb_xa(va->va_start);
> vb_idx = addr_to_vb_idx(va->va_start);
> @@ -2642,7 +2643,6 @@ static void *new_vmap_block(unsigned int order, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> * integrity together with list_for_each_rcu from read
> * side.
> */
> - vb->cpu = raw_smp_processor_id();
> vbq = per_cpu_ptr(&vmap_block_queue, vb->cpu);
> spin_lock(&vbq->lock);
> list_add_tail_rcu(&vb->free_list, &vbq->free);
> --
> 2.46.0.76.ge559c4bf1a-goog
>
>
Agree, actully I had comment in
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240604034945.tqwp2sxldpy6ido5@xxxxxxxx/
myabe put this line in vb's initialization before xa_insert looks more reasonable for me.
Thanks.
--
help you, help me,
Hailong.
