On Wed, Aug 13 2025, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 02:14:23PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 02:02:07PM +0200, Pratyush Yadav wrote:
>> > On Wed, Aug 13 2025, Greg KH wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 11:34:37PM -0700, Vipin Sharma wrote:
>> > >> On 2025-08-07 01:44:35, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
>> > >> > From: Pratyush Yadav <ptyadav@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > >> > +static void memfd_luo_unpreserve_folios(const struct memfd_luo_preserved_folio *pfolios,
>> > >> > + unsigned int nr_folios)
>> > >> > +{
>> > >> > + unsigned int i;
>> > >> > +
>> > >> > + for (i = 0; i < nr_folios; i++) {
>> > >> > + const struct memfd_luo_preserved_folio *pfolio = &pfolios[i];
>> > >> > + struct folio *folio;
>> > >> > +
>> > >> > + if (!pfolio->foliodesc)
>> > >> > + continue;
>> > >> > +
>> > >> > + folio = pfn_folio(PRESERVED_FOLIO_PFN(pfolio->foliodesc));
>> > >> > +
>> > >> > + kho_unpreserve_folio(folio);
>> > >>
>> > >> This one is missing WARN_ON_ONCE() similar to the one in
>> > >> memfd_luo_preserve_folios().
>> > >
>> > > So you really want to cause a machine to reboot and get a CVE issued for
>> > > this, if it could be triggered? That's bold :)
>> > >
>> > > Please don't. If that can happen, handle the issue and move on, don't
>> > > crash boxes.
>> >
>> > Why would a WARN() crash the machine? That is what BUG() does, not
>> > WARN().
>>
>> See 'panic_on_warn' which is enabled in a few billion Linux systems
>> these days :(
>
> This has been discussed so many times already:
>
> https://lwn.net/Articles/969923/
>
> When someone tried to formalize this "don't use WARN_ON" position
> in the coding-style.rst it was NAK'd:
>
> https://lwn.net/ml/linux-kernel/10af93f8-83f2-48ce-9bc3-80fe4c60082c@xxxxxxxxxx/
>
> Based on Linus's opposition to the idea:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wgF7K2gSSpy=m_=K3Nov4zaceUX9puQf1TjkTJLA2XC_g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>
> Use the warn ons. Make sure they can't be triggered by userspace. Use
> them to detect corruption/malfunction in the kernel.
>
> In this case if kho_unpreserve_folio() fails in this call chain it
> means some error unwind is wrongly happening out of sequence, and we
> are now forced to leak memory. Unwind is not something that userspace
> should be controlling, so of course we want a WARN_ON here.
Yep. And if we are saying WARN() should never be used then doesn't that
make panic_on_warn a no-op? What is even the point of that option then?
Here, we are unable to unpreserve a folio that we have preserved. This
isn't a normal error that we expect to happen. This should _not_ happen
unless something has gone horribly wrong.
For example, the calls to kho_preserve_folio() don't WARN(), since that
can fail for various reasons. They just return the error up the call
chain. As an analogy, allocating a page can fail, and it is quite
reasonable to expect the code to not throw out WARN()s for that. But if
for some reason you can't free a page that you allocated, this is very
unexpected and should WARN(). Of course, in Linux the page free APIs
don't even return a status, but I hope you get my point.
If I were a system administrator who sets panic_on_warn, I would _want_
the system to crash so no further damage happens and I can collect
logs/crash dumps to investigate later. Without the WARN(), I never get a
chance to debug and my system breaks silently. For all others, the
kernel goes on with some possibly corrupted/broken state.
--
Regards,
Pratyush Yadav
