From: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Cc: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>, Nitin Gupta <ngupta@vflare.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
yizhan@redhat.com,
Linux Block Layer Mailinglist <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailinglist <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] zram: set physical queue limits to avoid array out of bounds accesses
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 08:48:06 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ed4d83a1-9bdd-9e24-7768-ba5e85429110@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEwNFnAb4x+sm6=vWd1W4Xj7Snp1V_LtRRx9ORFKpm1b-58kyw@mail.gmail.com>
On 03/07/2017 08:23 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Hi Hannes,
>
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> wrote:
>> On 03/07/2017 06:22 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
>>> Hello Johannes,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:23:35AM +0100, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
>>>> zram can handle at most SECTORS_PER_PAGE sectors in a bio's bvec. When using
>>>> the NVMe over Fabrics loopback target which potentially sends a huge bulk of
>>>> pages attached to the bio's bvec this results in a kernel panic because of
>>>> array out of bounds accesses in zram_decompress_page().
>>>
>>> First of all, thanks for the report and fix up!
>>> Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with that interface of block layer.
>>>
>>> It seems this is a material for stable so I want to understand it clear.
>>> Could you say more specific things to educate me?
>>>
>>> What scenario/When/How it is problem? It will help for me to understand!
>>>
>
> Thanks for the quick response!
>
>> The problem is that zram as it currently stands can only handle bios
>> where each bvec contains a single page (or, to be precise, a chunk of
>> data with a length of a page).
>
> Right.
>
>>
>> This is not an automatic guarantee from the block layer (who is free to
>> send us bios with arbitrary-sized bvecs), so we need to set the queue
>> limits to ensure that.
>
> What does it mean "bios with arbitrary-sized bvecs"?
> What kinds of scenario is it used/useful?
>
Each bio contains a list of bvecs, each of which points to a specific
memory area:
struct bio_vec {
struct page *bv_page;
unsigned int bv_len;
unsigned int bv_offset;
};
The trick now is that while 'bv_page' does point to a page, the memory
area pointed to might in fact be contiguous (if several pages are
adjacent). Hence we might be getting a bio_vec where bv_len is _larger_
than a page.
Hence the check for 'is_partial_io' in zram_drv.c (which just does a
test 'if bv_len != PAGE_SIZE) is in fact wrong, as it would trigger for
partial I/O (ie if the overall length of the bio_vec is _smaller_ than a
page), but also for multipage bvecs (where the length of the bio_vec is
_larger_ than a page).
So rather than fixing the bio scanning loop in zram it's easier to set
the queue limits correctly so that 'is_partial_io' does the correct
thing and the overall logic in zram doesn't need to be altered.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke Teamlead Storage & Networking
hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-07 11:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-06 10:23 [PATCH] zram: set physical queue limits to avoid array out of bounds accesses Johannes Thumshirn
2017-03-06 10:25 ` Hannes Reinecke
2017-03-06 10:45 ` Sergey Senozhatsky
2017-03-06 15:21 ` Jens Axboe
2017-03-06 20:18 ` Andrew Morton
2017-03-06 20:19 ` Jens Axboe
2017-03-07 5:22 ` Minchan Kim
2017-03-07 7:00 ` Hannes Reinecke
2017-03-07 7:23 ` Minchan Kim
2017-03-07 7:48 ` Hannes Reinecke [this message]
2017-03-07 8:55 ` Minchan Kim
2017-03-07 9:51 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2017-03-08 5:11 ` Minchan Kim
2017-03-08 7:58 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2017-03-09 5:28 ` Minchan Kim
2017-03-30 15:08 ` Minchan Kim
2017-03-30 15:35 ` Jens Axboe
2017-03-30 23:45 ` Minchan Kim
2017-03-31 1:38 ` Jens Axboe
2017-04-03 5:11 ` Minchan Kim
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=ed4d83a1-9bdd-9e24-7768-ba5e85429110@suse.de \
--to=hare@suse.de \
--cc=axboe@fb.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jthumshirn@suse.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=minchan@kernel.org \
--cc=ngupta@vflare.org \
--cc=sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com \
--cc=yizhan@redhat.com \
/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).