Re: [PATCH 6.12.y] mm/damon/core: validate ranges in damon_set_regions()

On Thu, 30 Jul 2026 01:15:54 +0000 [email protected] wrote:

> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 3 potential issue(s) to consider:
> 
> New issues:
> - [High] The newly added validation check incorrectly uses alignment macros, allowing unaligned zero-length or inverted regions to silently bypass validation.
> - [Medium] The validation check unconditionally rejects valid monitoring ranges ending near the top of the address space due to an integer overflow in the ALIGN macro.
> 
> Pre-existing issues:
> - [High] Alignment rounding combined with a flawed iteration loop creates overlapping monitoring regions from valid, non-overlapping user inputs.
> --
> 
> --- Patch [1]: [PATCH 6.12.y] mm/damon/core: validate ranges in damon_set_regions() ---
> commit b519271ef73c8bbed5092bcf809ea6bc504693b6
> Author: SJ Park <[email protected]>
> Date:   Thu Jul 30 00:56:39 2026 +0000
> 
> mm/damon/core: validate ranges in damon_set_regions()
>     
> This commit attempts to validate regions in damon_set_regions() to reject 
> zero length monitoring target regions, which could previously trigger a 
> divide-by-zero or WARN_ONCE.
> 
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/[email protected]
> 
> > diff --git a/mm/damon/core.c b/mm/damon/core.c
> > index 7911599c37f22..7217bb2ef51ec 100644
> > --- a/mm/damon/core.c
> > +++ b/mm/damon/core.c
> > @@ -214,6 +214,12 @@ int damon_set_regions(struct damon_target *t, struct damon_addr_range *ranges,
> >  	unsigned int i;
> >  	int err;
> >  
> > +	for (i = 0; i < nr_ranges; i++) {
> > +		if (ALIGN_DOWN(ranges[i].start, DAMON_MIN_REGION) >=
> > +				ALIGN(ranges[i].end, DAMON_MIN_REGION))
> > +			return -EINVAL;
> > +	}
> > +
> 
> [Severity: High]
> Does this validation logic allow unaligned zero-length or inverted regions
> to bypass the check?
> 
> If a user configures an unaligned empty region (e.g., start = 4097, 
> end = 4097) via sysfs, ALIGN_DOWN evaluates to 4096 and ALIGN evaluates to
> 8192. The condition 4096 >= 8192 evaluates to false, which completely 
> bypasses the rejection of the invalid region.

Yes, and no problem.  That's the intended behavior.

> 
> [Severity: Medium]
> Will this check unconditionally reject valid monitoring ranges ending near the
> top of the address space?
> 
> If a caller specifies a monitoring region ending near ULONG_MAX, the
> ALIGN(ranges[i].end, DAMON_MIN_REGION) operation could wrap around to 0.
> This would cause the unsigned comparison ALIGN_DOWN(start) >= 0 to always
> evaluate to true, resulting in a false positive -EINVAL rejection.

Too weired user setup.  I will ignore this unless someone reports different
opinions.

> 
> [Severity: High]
> This is a pre-existing issue, but does alignment rounding combined with the
> iteration loop create overlapping monitoring regions from valid,
> non-overlapping user inputs?
> 
> mm/damon/core.c:damon_set_regions() {
>     ...
>     if (!first) {
>         /* no region intersects with this range */
>         newr = damon_new_region(
>                 ALIGN_DOWN(range->start,
>                     DAMON_MIN_REGION),
>                 ALIGN(range->end, DAMON_MIN_REGION));
>         if (!newr)
>             return -ENOMEM;
>         damon_insert_region(newr, damon_prev_region(r), r, t);
>     } else {
>     ...
> }
> 
> If a user configures adjacent, non-overlapping unaligned ranges (e.g., 
> start = 0, end = 4097 and start = 4098, end = 8192), ALIGN_DOWN and ALIGN 
> expand these to [0, 8192] and [4096, 8192], which overlap.

In the case, the overlapping regions check at the beginning of the function
should returned an error.

> 
> Furthermore, because the loop cursor is not reset, intersection checks are 
> skipped for subsequent ranges once the list end is reached. Could this cause 
> these overlapping regions to be blindly inserted, potentially corrupting 
> core data structures?

So this couldn't happen.

> 
> -- 
> Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/[email protected]?part=1


Thanks,
SJ