On 24.02.25 22:59, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
The page extension implementation assumes that all page extensions of
a given page order are stored in the same memory section. The function
page_ext_next() relies on this assumption by adding an offset to the
current object to return the next adjacent page extension.
This behavior works as expected for flatmem but fails for sparsemem when
using 1G pages. The commit cf54f310d0d3 ("mm/hugetlb: use __GFP_COMP for
gigantic folios") exposes this issue, making it possible for a crash when
using page_owner or page_table_check page extensions.
The problem is that for 1G pages, the page extensions may span memory
section boundaries and be stored in different memory sections. This issue
was not visible before commit cf54f310d0d3 ("mm/hugetlb: use __GFP_COMP
for gigantic folios") because alloc_contig_pages() never passed more than
MAX_PAGE_ORDER to post_alloc_hook(). However, the series introducing
mentioned commit changed this behavior allowing the full 1G page order
to be passed.
Reproducer:
1. Build the kernel with CONFIG_SPARSEMEM=y and table extensions
support
2. Pass 'default_hugepagesz=1 page_owner=on' in the kernel command-line
3. Reserve one 1G page at run-time, this should crash (backtrace below)
To address this issue, this commit introduces a new API for iterating
through page extensions. The main iteration macro is for_each_page_ext()
and it must be called with the RCU read lock taken. Here's an usage
example:
"""
struct page_ext_iter iter;
struct page_ext *page_ext;
...
rcu_read_lock();
for_each_page_ext(page, 1 << order, page_ext, iter) {
struct my_page_ext *obj = get_my_page_ext_obj(page_ext);
...
}
rcu_read_unlock();
"""
The loop construct uses page_ext_iter_next() which checks to see if we
have crossed sections in the iteration. In this case, page_ext_iter_next()
retrieves the next page_ext object from another section.
Thanks to David Hildenbrand for helping identify the root cause and
providing suggestions on how to fix and optmize the solution (final
implementation and bugs are all mine through).
Lastly, here's the backtrace, without kasan you can get random crashes:
[ 76.052526] BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in __update_page_owner_handle+0x238/0x298
[ 76.060283] Write of size 4 at addr ffff07ff96240038 by task tee/3598
[ 76.066714]
[ 76.068203] CPU: 88 UID: 0 PID: 3598 Comm: tee Kdump: loaded Not tainted 6.13.0-rep1 #3
[ 76.076202] Hardware name: WIWYNN Mt.Jade Server System B81.030Z1.0007/Mt.Jade Motherboard, BIOS 2.10.20220810 (SCP: 2.10.20220810) 2022/08/10
[ 76.088972] Call trace:
[ 76.091411] show_stack+0x20/0x38 (C)
[ 76.095073] dump_stack_lvl+0x80/0xf8
[ 76.098733] print_address_description.constprop.0+0x88/0x398
[ 76.104476] print_report+0xa8/0x278
[ 76.108041] kasan_report+0xa8/0xf8
[ 76.111520] __asan_report_store4_noabort+0x20/0x30
[ 76.116391] __update_page_owner_handle+0x238/0x298
[ 76.121259] __set_page_owner+0xdc/0x140
[ 76.125173] post_alloc_hook+0x190/0x1d8
[ 76.129090] alloc_contig_range_noprof+0x54c/0x890
[ 76.133874] alloc_contig_pages_noprof+0x35c/0x4a8
[ 76.138656] alloc_gigantic_folio.isra.0+0x2c0/0x368
[ 76.143616] only_alloc_fresh_hugetlb_folio.isra.0+0x24/0x150
[ 76.149353] alloc_pool_huge_folio+0x11c/0x1f8
[ 76.153787] set_max_huge_pages+0x364/0xca8
[ 76.157961] __nr_hugepages_store_common+0xb0/0x1a0
[ 76.162829] nr_hugepages_store+0x108/0x118
[ 76.167003] kobj_attr_store+0x3c/0x70
[ 76.170745] sysfs_kf_write+0xfc/0x188
[ 76.174492] kernfs_fop_write_iter+0x274/0x3e0
[ 76.178927] vfs_write+0x64c/0x8e0
[ 76.182323] ksys_write+0xf8/0x1f0
[ 76.185716] __arm64_sys_write+0x74/0xb0
[ 76.189630] invoke_syscall.constprop.0+0xd8/0x1e0
[ 76.194412] do_el0_svc+0x164/0x1e0
[ 76.197891] el0_svc+0x40/0xe0
[ 76.200939] el0t_64_sync_handler+0x144/0x168
[ 76.205287] el0t_64_sync+0x1ac/0x1b0
Fixes: cf54f310d0d3 ("mm/hugetlb: use __GFP_COMP for gigantic folios")
Signed-off-by: Luiz Capitulino <luizcap@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
