linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ksm: fix conflict between mmput and scan_get_next_rmap

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:	Fri, 6 May 2016 10:54:11 +0800
From:	Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
To:	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Zhou Chengming <zhouchengming1@...wei.com>
CC:	<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <hughd@...gle.com>,
	<kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, <vbabka@...e.cz>,
	<geliangtang@....com>, <minchan@...nel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
	<huawei.libin@...wei.com>, <thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>,
	<qiuxishi@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ksm: fix conflict between mmput and
 scan_get_next_rmap_item

Good Catch.

The original code looks too old, use the ksm_mmlist_lock to protect the mm_list looks will affect the performance,
Should we use the RCU to protect the list and not free the mm until out of the rcu critical period? 


On 2016/5/6 5:57, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Hello Zhou,
> 
> Great catch.
> 
> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 08:42:56PM +0800, Zhou Chengming wrote:
>>  	remove_trailing_rmap_items(slot, ksm_scan.rmap_list);
>> +	up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
>>  
>>  	spin_lock(&ksm_mmlist_lock);
>>  	ksm_scan.mm_slot = list_entry(slot->mm_list.next,
>> @@ -1666,16 +1667,12 @@ next_mm:
>>  		 */
>>  		hash_del(&slot->link);
>>  		list_del(&slot->mm_list);
>> -		spin_unlock(&ksm_mmlist_lock);
>>  
>>  		free_mm_slot(slot);
>>  		clear_bit(MMF_VM_MERGEABLE, &mm->flags);
>> -		up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
>>  		mmdrop(mm);
> 
> I thought the mmap_sem for reading prevented a race of the above
> clear_bit against a concurrent madvise(MADV_MERGEABLE) which takes the
> mmap_sem for writing. After this change can't __ksm_enter run
> concurrently with the clear_bit above introducing a different SMP race
> condition?
> 
>> -	} else {
>> -		spin_unlock(&ksm_mmlist_lock);
>> -		up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> 
> The strict obviously safe fix is just to invert the above two,
> up_read; spin_unlock.
> 
> Then I found another instance of this same SMP race condition in
> unmerge_and_remove_all_rmap_items() that you didn't fix.
> 
> Actually for the other instance of the bug the implementation above
> that releases the mmap_sem early sounds safe, because it's a
> ksm_text_exit that takes the clear_bit path, not just the fact we
> didn't find a vma with VM_MERGEABLE set and we garbage collect the
> mm_slot, while the "mm" may still alive. In the other case the "mm"
> isn't alive anymore so the race with MADV_MERGEABLE shouldn't be
> possible to materialize.
> 
> Could you fix it by just inverting the up_read/spin_unlock order, in
> the place you patched, and add this comment:
> 
> 	} else {
> 		/*
> 		 * up_read(&mm->mmap_sem) first because after
> 		 * spin_unlock(&ksm_mmlist_lock) run, the "mm" may
> 		 * already have been freed under us by __ksm_exit()
> 		 * because the "mm_slot" is still hashed and
> 		 * ksm_scan.mm_slot doesn't point to it anymore.
> 		 */
> 		up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> 		spin_unlock(&ksm_mmlist_lock);
> 	}
> 
> And in unmerge_and_remove_all_rmap_items() same thing, except there
> you can apply your up_read() early and you can just drop the "else"
> clause.
> 
> .
>