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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:30:21 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: [PATCH] [BUGFIX] update mm->owner even if no next owner. I think this can be a fix. maybe good to CC Oleg. == >From dff52fb35af0cf36486965d19ee79e04b59f1dc4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:15:14 +0900 Subject: [PATCH] [BUGFIX] update mm->owner even if no next owner. A panic is reported. > Call Trace: > [<ffffffff81139792>] mem_cgroup_from_task+0x15/0x17 > [<ffffffff8113a75a>] __mem_cgroup_try_charge+0x148/0x4b4 > [<ffffffff810493f3>] ? need_resched+0x23/0x2d > [<ffffffff814cbf43>] ? preempt_schedule+0x46/0x4f > [<ffffffff8113afe8>] mem_cgroup_charge_common+0x9a/0xce > [<ffffffff8113b6d1>] mem_cgroup_newpage_charge+0x5d/0x5f > [<ffffffff81134024>] khugepaged+0x5da/0xfaf > [<ffffffff81078ea0>] ? __init_waitqueue_head+0x4b/0x4b > [<ffffffff81133a4a>] ? add_mm_counter.constprop.5+0x13/0x13 > [<ffffffff81078625>] kthread+0xa8/0xb0 > [<ffffffff814d13e8>] ? sub_preempt_count+0xa1/0xb4 > [<ffffffff814d5664>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10 > [<ffffffff814ce858>] ? retint_restore_args+0x13/0x13 > [<ffffffff8107857d>] ? __init_kthread_worker+0x5a/0x5a The code is. > return container_of(task_subsys_state(p, mem_cgroup_subsys_id), > struct mem_cgroup, css); What happens here is accssing a freed task struct "p" from mm->owner. So, it's doubtful that mm->owner points to freed task struct. At thread exit, we need to handle mm->owner. If exitting-thread == mm->owner, we modify mm->owner to points to other exisiting task. But, we do not update mm->owner when there are no more threads. But if a kernel thread, like khugepaged, picks up a mm_struct without updating mm->users, there is a trouble. When mm_users shows that the task is the last task belongs to mm. mm->owner is not updated and remained to point to the task. So, in this case, mm->owner points to a not exisiting task. This was good because if there are no thread, no charge happens in old days. But now, we have ksm and khugepaged. rcu_read_lock() used in memcg is of no use because mm->owner can be freed before we take rcu_read_lock. Then, mm->owner should be cleared if there are no next owner. Reported-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com> Reported-by: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com> Signed-off-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com> --- kernel/exit.c | 6 ++++-- 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c index 20a4064..dbc3736 100644 --- a/kernel/exit.c +++ b/kernel/exit.c @@ -582,8 +582,10 @@ void mm_update_next_owner(struct mm_struct *mm) struct task_struct *c, *g, *p = current; retry: - if (!mm_need_new_owner(mm, p)) + if (!mm_need_new_owner(mm, p)) { + rcu_assign_pointer(mm->owner, NULL); return; + } read_lock(&tasklist_lock); /* @@ -617,7 +619,7 @@ retry: * most likely racing with swapoff (try_to_unuse()) or /proc or * ptrace or page migration (get_task_mm()). Mark owner as NULL. */ - mm->owner = NULL; + rcu_assign_pointer(mm->owner, NULL); return; assign_new_owner: -- 1.7.4.1 -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists