linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] mm/hmm: HMM should have a callback before MM is destroyed

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:   Thu, 15 Mar 2018 20:54:33 -0400
From:   Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>,
        Evgeny Baskakov <ebaskakov@...dia.com>,
        Mark Hairgrove <mhairgrove@...dia.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] mm/hmm: HMM should have a callback before MM is
 destroyed

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 03:48:29PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 14:36:59 -0400 jglisse@...hat.com wrote:
> 
> > From: Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>
> > 
> > The hmm_mirror_register() function registers a callback for when
> > the CPU pagetable is modified. Normally, the device driver will
> > call hmm_mirror_unregister() when the process using the device is
> > finished. However, if the process exits uncleanly, the struct_mm
> > can be destroyed with no warning to the device driver.
> 
> The changelog doesn't tell us what the runtime effects of the bug are. 
> This makes it hard for me to answer the "did Jerome consider doing
> cc:stable" question.

The impact is low, they might be issue only if application is kill,
and we don't have any upstream user yet hence why i did not cc
stable.

> 
> > --- a/mm/hmm.c
> > +++ b/mm/hmm.c
> > @@ -160,6 +160,23 @@ static void hmm_invalidate_range(struct hmm *hmm,
> >  	up_read(&hmm->mirrors_sem);
> >  }
> >  
> > +static void hmm_release(struct mmu_notifier *mn, struct mm_struct *mm)
> > +{
> > +	struct hmm *hmm = mm->hmm;
> > +	struct hmm_mirror *mirror;
> > +	struct hmm_mirror *mirror_next;
> > +
> > +	VM_BUG_ON(!hmm);
> 
> This doesn't add much value.  We'll reliably oops on the next statement
> anyway, which will provide the same info.  And Linus gets all upset at
> new BUG_ON() instances.

It is true, this BUG_ON can be drop, you want me to respin ?

> 
> > +	down_write(&hmm->mirrors_sem);
> > +	list_for_each_entry_safe(mirror, mirror_next, &hmm->mirrors, list) {
> > +		list_del_init(&mirror->list);
> > +		if (mirror->ops->release)
> > +			mirror->ops->release(mirror);
> > +	}
> > +	up_write(&hmm->mirrors_sem);
> > +}
> > +
>