linux-kernel - Re: + x86-mm-handle-mm_fault_error-in-kernel-space.patch added to -mm tree

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Thu, 10 Mar 2011 15:28:12 +0100
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: + x86-mm-handle-mm_fault_error-in-kernel-space.patch added to
	-mm tree

(add cc's)

> Subject: x86/mm: handle mm_fault_error() in kernel space
> From: Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>
>
> mm_fault_error() should not execute oom-killer, if page fault occurs in
> kernel space.  E.g.  in copy_from_user/copy_to_user.

Why? I don't understand this part.

> This would happen if we find ourselves in OOM on a copy_to_user(), or a
> copy_from_user() which faults.
>
> Without this patch, the kernels hangs up in copy_from_user, because OOM
> killer sends SIG_KILL to current process,

This depends. OOM can choose another victim, and if it does we shouldn't
return -EFAULT.

> but it can't handle a signal
> while in syscall, then the kernel returns to copy_from_user, reexcute
> current command and provokes page_fault again.

Yes. This is buggy.

> --- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c~x86-mm-handle-mm_fault_error-in-kernel-space
> +++ a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> @@ -827,6 +827,13 @@ mm_fault_error(struct pt_regs *regs, uns
>  	       unsigned long address, unsigned int fault)
>  {
>  	if (fault & VM_FAULT_OOM) {
> +		/* Kernel mode? Handle exceptions or die: */
> +		if (!(error_code & PF_USER)) {
> +			up_read(&current->mm->mmap_sem);
> +			no_context(regs, error_code, address);
> +			return;
> +		}
> +

At first glance, this is not optimal...

Perhaps I missed something, but afaics it is better to call
out_of_memory() first, then check if current was killed. In this case
no_context() is fine, we are not going to return to the user-mode.

IOW, what do you think about the (untested/uncompiled) patch below?

Oleg.

--- x/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
+++ x/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
@@ -829,6 +829,11 @@ mm_fault_error(struct pt_regs *regs, uns
 {
 	if (fault & VM_FAULT_OOM) {
 		out_of_memory(regs, error_code, address);
+
+		if (!(error_code & PF_USER) && fatal_signal_pending(current)) {
+			no_context(regs, error_code, address);
+			return;
+		}
 	} else {
 		if (fault & (VM_FAULT_SIGBUS|VM_FAULT_HWPOISON|
 			     VM_FAULT_HWPOISON_LARGE))

--
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/