linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 8 May 2016 14:03:08 +0800
From:	zhouchengming <zhouchengming1@...wei.com>
To:	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.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>,
	<dingtianhong@...wei.com>, <huawei.libin@...wei.com>,
	<thunder.leizhen@...wei.com>, <qiuxishi@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ksm: fix conflict between mmput and scan_get_next_rmap_item

On 2016/5/6 22:24, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 11:27:36AM +0800, Zhou Chengming wrote:
>> @@ -1650,16 +1647,22 @@ 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);
>>   	} else {
>> -		spin_unlock(&ksm_mmlist_lock);
>>   		up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
>>   	}
>> +	/*
>> +	 * 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.
>> +	 */
>> +	spin_unlock(&ksm_mmlist_lock);
>>
>>   	/* Repeat until we've completed scanning the whole list */
>>   	slot = ksm_scan.mm_slot;
>
> Reviewed-by: Andrea Arcangeli<aarcange@...hat.com>
>
> While the above patch is correct, I would however prefer if you could
> update it to keep releasing the ksm_mmlist_lock as before (I'm talking
> only about the quoted part, not the other one not quoted), because
> it's "strictier" and it better documents that it's only needed up
> until:
>
>    		hash_del(&slot->link);
>    		list_del(&slot->mm_list);
>
> It should be also a bit more scalable but to me this is just about
> keeping implicit documentation on the locking by keeping it strict.
>
> The fact up_read happens exactly after clear_bit also avoided me to
> overlook that it was really needed, same thing with the
> ksm_mmlist_lock after list_del, I'd like to keep it there and just
> invert the order of spin_unlock; up_read in the else branch.

Thanks a lot for your review and comment. It's my fault to misunderstand
your last reply. Yes it's better and more scalable to just invert the 
order of spin_unlock/up_read in the else branch. And it's also enough.

Thanks!
>
> That should be enough because after hash_del get_mm_slot will return
> NULL so the mmdrop will not happen anymore in __ksm_exit, this is
> further explicit by the code doing mmdrop itself just after
> up_read.
>
> The SMP race condition is fixed by just the two liner that reverse the
> order of spin_unlock; up_read without increasing the size of the
> spinlock critical section for the ksm_scan.address == 0 case. This is
> also why it wasn't reproducible because it's about 1 instruction window.
>
> Thanks!
> Andrea
>
> .
>