linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Fix OOPS in mmap_region() when merging adjacent VM

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, 2 Feb 2009 21:50:42 +0000
From:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
	Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
	Maksim Yevmenkin <maksim.yevmenkin@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	will@...wder-design.com, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Mikos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
	Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix OOPS in mmap_region() when merging adjacent
	VM_LOCKED file segments

On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 11:23:33AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2009, Mel Gorman wrote:
> >
> > Do not account for address space usage when making hugetlbfs mappings RW
> > 
> > hugetlbfs accounts for its address space usage separate from the VM
> > core. VM_ACCOUNT should not be set for its mappings but it is possible it gets
> > set if a user creates a RO hugetlbfs mapping MAP_NORESERVE and then calls
> > mprotect(). This patch stops VM_ACCOUNT being set for hugetlbfs mappings
> > during mprotect().
> > 
> > Credit goes to Kosaki Motohiro for spotting this.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c
> > index abe2694..31ddc6a 100644
> > --- a/mm/mprotect.c
> > +++ b/mm/mprotect.c
> > @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ mprotect_fixup(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct vm_area_struct **pprev,
> >  	 * but (without finer accounting) cannot reduce our commit if we
> >  	 * make it unwritable again.
> >  	 */
> > -	if (newflags & VM_WRITE) {
> > +	if (newflags & VM_WRITE && !(vma->vm_flags & VM_HUGETLB)) {
> 
> Wouldn't it be _much_ nicer to just depend on that whole VM_NORESERVE 
> thing?
> 

Yeah, it would but it's not a trivial change. mm/hugetlb.c depends on
VM_NORESERVE for its own accounting but also depends on VM_ACCOUNT not being
set because counters would get mucked up when the VMAs get unmapped.

The ideal answer would be to handle VM_ACCOUNT properly but it's not
clear-cut. If it's counted towards reserves, then we are double reserving -
the huge pages already allocated and base pages that will never be used. Then
again, maybe the right thing to do is update nr_accounted when VM_HUGETLB
is not set converting things like

               if (vma->vm_flags & VM_ACCOUNT)
                        *nr_accounted += (end - start) >> PAGE_SHIFT;

to

               if (vma->vm_flags & (VM_ACCOUNT | VM_HUGETLB) == VM_ACCOUNT)
                        *nr_accounted += (end - start) >> PAGE_SHIFT;

?

> Those hugetlb mappings _should_ have VM_NORESERVE on them, so the 
> following test:
> 
> >  		if (!(oldflags & (VM_ACCOUNT|VM_WRITE|
> >  						VM_SHARED|VM_NORESERVE))) {
> >  			charged = nrpages;
> 
> should do it all correctly.
> 

Lets say someone does the following

1. mmap(PROT_READ, MAP_PRIVATE) on a hugetlbfs file
	VM_ACCOUNT is not set for hugetlbfs
	VM_NORESERVE is not set because MAP_NORESERVE was not there
2. mprotect(PROT_WRITE)
	VM_ACCOUNT|VM_WRITE|VM_SHARE|VM_NORESERVE == 0
	That check is true
	newflags |= VM_ACCOUNT and hugetlbfs now has VM_ACCOUNT
3. unmap the vmas
	nr_accounted gets decremented, maybe wraps negative and
	unhappiness ensues

> Why make up some ad-hoc testing, when we already have a flag for _exactly_ 
> this issue. That's what VM_NORESERVE means: don't apply VM_ACCOUNT.
> 
> IOW, I don't see the point of this patch at all.
> 
> And if there is some hugetlb path that doesn't set VM_NORESERVE, then fix 
> _that_ instead.
> 

It gets set all right, the problem is with VM_ACCOUNT getting set.

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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/