ppc64 early slub caches have zero random value

[Vlastimil Babka]

On 4/17/20 6:53 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> Hello,

Hi, thanks for reproducing on latest upstream!

> instrumenting the kernel with the following patch
> 
> ---
>  mm/slub.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> index d6787bbe0248..d40995d5f8ff 100644
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -3633,6 +3633,7 @@ static int kmem_cache_open(struct kmem_cache *s, slab_flags_t flags)
>  	s->flags = kmem_cache_flags(s->size, flags, s->name, s->ctor);
>  #ifdef CONFIG_SLAB_FREELIST_HARDENED
>  	s->random = get_random_long();
> +	pr_notice("Creating cache %s with s->random=%ld\n", s->name, s->random);
>  #endif
>  
>  	if (!calculate_sizes(s, -1))
> 
> I get:
> 
> [    0.000000] random: get_random_u64 called from kmem_cache_open+0x3c/0x5b0
with crng_init=0
> [    0.000000] Creating cache kmem_cache_node with s->random=0
> [    0.000000] Creating cache kmem_cache with s->random=0
> [    0.000000] Creating cache kmalloc-8 with s->random=0
> [    0.000000] Creating cache kmalloc-16 with s->random=0
> [    0.000000] Creating cache kmalloc-32 with s->random=0
> [    0.000000] Creating cache kmalloc-64 with s->random=0
> [    0.000000] Creating cache kmalloc-96 with s->random=0
> [    0.000000] Creating cache kmalloc-128 with s->random=0
> [    0.000000] Creating cache kmalloc-192 with s->random=-682532147323126958
> 
> The earliest caches created invariably end up with s->random of zero.

It seems that reliably it's the first 8 calls get_random_u64(), which sounds
more like some off-by-X bug than a genuine lack entropy that would become fixed
in the meanwhile?

> This is a problem for crash which does not recognize these as randomized
> and fails to read them. While this can be addressed in crash is it
> intended to create caches with zero random value in the kernel?

Definitely not. The question is more likely what guarantees we have with
crng_init=0. Probably we can't expect cryptographically strong randomness, but
zeroes still do look like a bug to me?

> This is broken at least in the 5.4~5.7 range but it is not clear if this
> ever worked. All examples of earlier kernels I have at hand use slab mm.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Michal
>