linux-kernel - Re: [shm][hugetlb] Fix get_policy for stacked shared memory files

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:30:20 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Adam Litke <agl@...ibm.com>
Cc:	dean gaudet <dean@...tic.org>,
	William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ak@...e.de, clameter@....com
Subject: Re: [shm][hugetlb] Fix get_policy for stacked shared memory files

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:34:54 -0500 Adam Litke <agl@...ibm.com> wrote:

> Here's another breakage as a result of shared memory stacked files :(
> 
> The NUMA policy for a VMA is determined by checking the following (in the order
> given):
> 
> 1) vma->vm_ops->get_policy() (if defined)
> 2) vma->vm_policy (if defined)
> 3) task->mempolicy (if defined)
> 4) Fall back to default_policy
> 
> By switching to stacked files for shared memory, get_policy() is now always set
> to shm_get_policy which is a wrapper function.  This causes us to stop at step
> 1, which yields NULL for hugetlb instead of task->mempolicy which was the
> previous (and correct) result.
> 
> This patch modifies the shm_get_policy() wrapper to maintain steps 1-3 for the
> wrapped vm_ops.  Andi and Christoph, does this look right to you?
> 

Can we just double-check the refcounting please?

> index 4fefbad..8d2672d 100644
> --- a/ipc/shm.c
> +++ b/ipc/shm.c
> @@ -254,8 +254,10 @@ struct mempolicy *shm_get_policy(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr)
>  
>  	if (sfd->vm_ops->get_policy)
>  		pol = sfd->vm_ops->get_policy(vma, addr);

afacit this takes a ref on the underlying policy

> -	else
> +	else if (vma->vm_policy)
>  		pol = vma->vm_policy;
> +	else
> +		pol = current->mempolicy;

but these two do not.

>  	return pol;
>  }
>  #endif

Is is all correct?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/