* [PATCH v2] mm: don't warn about large allocations for slab
@ 2018-09-27 17:15 Dmitry Vyukov
2018-10-16 13:59 ` Vlastimil Babka
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Dmitry Vyukov @ 2018-09-27 17:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cl, penberg, akpm, rientjes, iamjoonsoo.kim
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov, linux-mm, linux-kernel
From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Slub does not call kmalloc_slab() for sizes > KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE,
instead it falls back to kmalloc_large().
For slab KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE == KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE and it calls
kmalloc_slab() for all allocations relying on NULL return value
for over-sized allocations.
This inconsistency leads to unwanted warnings from kmalloc_slab()
for over-sized allocations for slab. Returning NULL for failed
allocations is the expected behavior.
Make slub and slab code consistent by checking size >
KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE in slab before calling kmalloc_slab().
While we are here also fix the check in kmalloc_slab().
We should check against KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE rather than
KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE. It all kinda worked because for slab the
constants are the same, and slub always checks the size against
KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE before kmalloc_slab().
But if we get there with size > KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE anyhow
bad things will happen. For example, in case of a newly introduced
bug in slub code.
Also move the check in kmalloc_slab() from function entry
to the size > 192 case. This partially compensates for the additional
check in slab code and makes slub code a bit faster
(at least theoretically).
Also drop __GFP_NOWARN in the warning check.
This warning means a bug in slab code itself,
user-passed flags have nothing to do with it.
Nothing of this affects slob.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Reported-by: syzbot+87829a10073277282ad1@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Reported-by: syzbot+ef4e8fc3a06e9019bb40@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Reported-by: syzbot+6e438f4036df52cbb863@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Reported-by: syzbot+8574471d8734457d98aa@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Reported-by: syzbot+af1504df0807a083dbd9@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
---
Changes since v1:
- everything has changed, re-review
---
mm/slab.c | 4 ++++
mm/slab_common.c | 12 ++++++------
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/slab.c b/mm/slab.c
index 9515798f37b2d..2a5654bb3b3ff 100644
--- a/mm/slab.c
+++ b/mm/slab.c
@@ -3675,6 +3675,8 @@ __do_kmalloc_node(size_t size, gfp_t flags, int node, unsigned long caller)
struct kmem_cache *cachep;
void *ret;
+ if (unlikely(size > KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE))
+ return NULL;
cachep = kmalloc_slab(size, flags);
if (unlikely(ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR(cachep)))
return cachep;
@@ -3710,6 +3712,8 @@ static __always_inline void *__do_kmalloc(size_t size, gfp_t flags,
struct kmem_cache *cachep;
void *ret;
+ if (unlikely(size > KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE))
+ return NULL;
cachep = kmalloc_slab(size, flags);
if (unlikely(ZERO_OR_NULL_PTR(cachep)))
return cachep;
diff --git a/mm/slab_common.c b/mm/slab_common.c
index 1f903589980f9..7eb8dc136c1cb 100644
--- a/mm/slab_common.c
+++ b/mm/slab_common.c
@@ -1023,18 +1023,18 @@ struct kmem_cache *kmalloc_slab(size_t size, gfp_t flags)
{
unsigned int index;
- if (unlikely(size > KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE)) {
- WARN_ON_ONCE(!(flags & __GFP_NOWARN));
- return NULL;
- }
-
if (size <= 192) {
if (!size)
return ZERO_SIZE_PTR;
index = size_index[size_index_elem(size)];
- } else
+ } else {
+ if (unlikely(size > KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE)) {
+ WARN_ON(1);
+ return NULL;
+ }
index = fls(size - 1);
+ }
return kmalloc_caches[kmalloc_type(flags)][index];
}
--
2.19.0.605.g01d371f741-goog
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] mm: don't warn about large allocations for slab
2018-09-27 17:15 [PATCH v2] mm: don't warn about large allocations for slab Dmitry Vyukov
@ 2018-10-16 13:59 ` Vlastimil Babka
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Vlastimil Babka @ 2018-10-16 13:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dmitry Vyukov, cl, penberg, akpm, rientjes, iamjoonsoo.kim
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov, linux-mm, linux-kernel
On 9/27/18 7:15 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
>
> Slub does not call kmalloc_slab() for sizes > KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE,
> instead it falls back to kmalloc_large().
> For slab KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE == KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE and it calls
> kmalloc_slab() for all allocations relying on NULL return value
> for over-sized allocations.
> This inconsistency leads to unwanted warnings from kmalloc_slab()
> for over-sized allocations for slab. Returning NULL for failed
> allocations is the expected behavior.
>
> Make slub and slab code consistent by checking size >
> KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE in slab before calling kmalloc_slab().
>
> While we are here also fix the check in kmalloc_slab().
> We should check against KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE rather than
> KMALLOC_MAX_SIZE. It all kinda worked because for slab the
> constants are the same, and slub always checks the size against
> KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE before kmalloc_slab().
> But if we get there with size > KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE anyhow
> bad things will happen. For example, in case of a newly introduced
> bug in slub code.
>
> Also move the check in kmalloc_slab() from function entry
> to the size > 192 case. This partially compensates for the additional
> check in slab code and makes slub code a bit faster
> (at least theoretically).
>
> Also drop __GFP_NOWARN in the warning check.
> This warning means a bug in slab code itself,
> user-passed flags have nothing to do with it.
>
> Nothing of this affects slob.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
> Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
> Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>
> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
> Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Reported-by: syzbot+87829a10073277282ad1@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> Reported-by: syzbot+ef4e8fc3a06e9019bb40@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> Reported-by: syzbot+6e438f4036df52cbb863@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> Reported-by: syzbot+8574471d8734457d98aa@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
> Reported-by: syzbot+af1504df0807a083dbd9@syzkaller.appspotmail.com
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-10-16 13:59 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-09-27 17:15 [PATCH v2] mm: don't warn about large allocations for slab Dmitry Vyukov
2018-10-16 13:59 ` Vlastimil Babka
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).