On 13/02/2018 15:48, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 08-02-18 13:35:08, David Rientjes wrote:
>> The KVM_SET_GSI_ROUTING ioctl does a vmalloc() of
>> sizeof(struct kvm_irq_routing_entry) multiplied by a user-supplied value.
>> This can be up to 4096 entries on architectures such as arm64 and s390
>> (and the upper bound may be increased on s390 eventually).
>> This can produce a vmalloc allocation failure warning:
>> vmalloc: allocation failure: 0 bytes,
> I am not arguing about the kvm change but do we actaully want to warn
> for 0 sized allocations? This just doesn't make much sense to me.
> In other words don't we want this?
> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> index 673942094328..c5d832510c54 100644
> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> @@ -1748,7 +1748,9 @@ void *__vmalloc_node_range(unsigned long size, unsigned
> long align,
> unsigned long real_size = size;
> size = PAGE_ALIGN(size);
> - if (!size || (size >> PAGE_SHIFT) > totalram_pages)
> + if (!size)
> + return NULL;
> + if ((size >> PAGE_SHIFT) > totalram_pages)
> goto fail;
> area = __get_vm_area_node(size, align, VM_ALLOC | VM_UNINITIALIZED |
There have been quite a few reports of this from syzkaller and generally
we've fixed them. It does seem like a recipe for NULL-pointer
dereferences when the size is user-controlled (as in this case).
But here I'm actually not sure that the "allocation failure: 0 bytes"
can happen, since we have a check above for "if (routing.nr)", and there
is a check also so that the maximum allocation here is a meager 128 KiB.
So I'm wondering if this patch is obsolete actually after commit