linux-kernel - Re: [shm][hugetlb] Fix get_policy for stacked shared memory files

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]

Message-ID: <a0a62dfc0706120732y5347431eyf11e9d57965f17f0@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 12 Jun 2007 09:32:59 -0500
From:	"Adam Litke" <aglitke@...il.com>
To:	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Cc:	"Adam Litke" <agl@...ibm.com>, "dean gaudet" <dean@...tic.org>,
	"William Lee Irwin III" <wli@...omorphy.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ak@...e.de, clameter@....com
Subject: Re: [shm][hugetlb] Fix get_policy for stacked shared memory files

On 6/12/07, Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
> Adam Litke <agl@...ibm.com> writes:
>
> > Here's another breakage as a result of shared memory stacked files :(
> >
> > The NUMA policy for a VMA is determined by checking the following (in the order
> > given):
> >
> > 1) vma->vm_ops->get_policy() (if defined)
> > 2) vma->vm_policy (if defined)
> > 3) task->mempolicy (if defined)
> > 4) Fall back to default_policy
> >
> > By switching to stacked files for shared memory, get_policy() is now always set
> > to shm_get_policy which is a wrapper function.  This causes us to stop at step
> > 1, which yields NULL for hugetlb instead of task->mempolicy which was the
> > previous (and correct) result.
> >
> > This patch modifies the shm_get_policy() wrapper to maintain steps 1-3 for the
> > wrapped vm_ops.  Andi and Christoph, does this look right to you?
>
> I'm confused.
>
> I agree that the behavior you describe is correct.
> However I only see two code paths were get_policy is called and
> both of them take a NULL result and change it to task->mempolicy:

The coffee hasn't quite absorbed yet, but don't those two code paths
take a NULL result from get_policy() and turn it into default_policy,
not task->mempolicy?

> From mm/mempolicy.c
>
> > long do_get_mempolicy(int *policy, nodemask_t *nmask,
> >                       unsigned long addr, unsigned long flags)
> > {
> >       int err;
> >       struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm;
> >       struct vm_area_struct *vma = NULL;
> >       struct mempolicy *pol = current->mempolicy;
> >
> >       cpuset_update_task_memory_state();
> >       if (flags & ~(unsigned long)(MPOL_F_NODE|MPOL_F_ADDR))
> >               return -EINVAL;
> >       if (flags & MPOL_F_ADDR) {
> >               down_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> >               vma = find_vma_intersection(mm, addr, addr+1);
> >               if (!vma) {
> >                       up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> >                       return -EFAULT;
> >               }
> >               if (vma->vm_ops && vma->vm_ops->get_policy)
> >                       pol = vma->vm_ops->get_policy(vma, addr);
> >               else
> >                       pol = vma->vm_policy;
> >       } else if (addr)
> >               return -EINVAL;
> >
> >       if (!pol)
> >               pol = &default_policy;
>
>
>
> > /* Return effective policy for a VMA */
> > static struct mempolicy * get_vma_policy(struct task_struct *task,
> >               struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr)
> > {
> >       struct mempolicy *pol = task->mempolicy;
> >
> >       if (vma) {
> >               if (vma->vm_ops && vma->vm_ops->get_policy)
> >                       pol = vma->vm_ops->get_policy(vma, addr);
> >               else if (vma->vm_policy &&
> >                               vma->vm_policy->policy != MPOL_DEFAULT)
> >                       pol = vma->vm_policy;
> >       }
> >       if (!pol)
> >               pol = &default_policy;
> >       return pol;
> > }
>
>
> Does this perhaps need to be:
> > Signed-off-by: Adam Litke <agl@...ibm.com>
> >
> > diff --git a/ipc/shm.c b/ipc/shm.c
> > index 4fefbad..8d2672d 100644
> > --- a/ipc/shm.c
> > +++ b/ipc/shm.c
> > @@ -254,8 +254,10 @@ struct mempolicy *shm_get_policy(struct vm_area_struct
> > *vma, unsigned long addr)
>
> +       pol = NULL;
> >
> >       if (sfd->vm_ops->get_policy)
> >               pol = sfd->vm_ops->get_policy(vma, addr);
> > -     else
> > +     else if (vma->vm_policy && vma->vm_policy->policy != MPOL_DEFAULT)
> >               pol = vma->vm_policy;
> >       return pol;
> >  }
> >  #endif

afaict this would provide no way for pol to be set to task->mempolicy
for hugetlb per my comment above.

--
Adam Litke ( agl at us.ibm.com )
IBM Linux Technology Center
-
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/