linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] set_mempolicy(MPOL_INTERLEAV) cause kernel panic

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: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0907241551070.8573@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:	Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:51:51 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:	Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@...com>
cc:	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Miao Xie <miaox@...fujitsu.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Paul Menage <menage@...gle.com>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	Yasunori Goto <y-goto@...fujitsu.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] set_mempolicy(MPOL_INTERLEAV) cause kernel panic

On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, David Rientjes wrote:

> numactl --interleave=all simply passes a nodemask with all bits set, so if 
> cpuset_current_mems_allowed includes offline nodes from node_possible_map, 
> then mpol_set_nodemask() doesn't mask them off.
> 
> Seems like we could handle this strictly in mempolicies without worrying 
> about top_cpuset like in the following?
> ---
> diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> @@ -194,6 +194,7 @@ static int mpol_new_bind(struct mempolicy *pol, const nodemask_t *nodes)
>  static int mpol_set_nodemask(struct mempolicy *pol, const nodemask_t *nodes)
>  {
>  	nodemask_t cpuset_context_nmask;
> +	nodemask_t mems_allowed;
>  	int ret;
>  
>  	/* if mode is MPOL_DEFAULT, pol is NULL. This is right. */
> @@ -201,20 +202,21 @@ static int mpol_set_nodemask(struct mempolicy *pol, const nodemask_t *nodes)
>  		return 0;
>  
>  	VM_BUG_ON(!nodes);
> +	nodes_and(mems_allowed, cpuset_current_mems_allowed,
> +				node_states[N_HIGH_MEMORY]);
>  	if (pol->mode == MPOL_PREFERRED && nodes_empty(*nodes))
>  		nodes = NULL;	/* explicit local allocation */
>  	else {
>  		if (pol->flags & MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES)
>  			mpol_relative_nodemask(&cpuset_context_nmask, nodes,
> -					       &cpuset_current_mems_allowed);
> +					       &mems_allowed);
>  		else
>  			nodes_and(cpuset_context_nmask, *nodes,
> -				  cpuset_current_mems_allowed);
> +				  mems_allowed);
>  		if (mpol_store_user_nodemask(pol))
>  			pol->w.user_nodemask = *nodes;
>  		else
> -			pol->w.cpuset_mems_allowed =
> -						cpuset_current_mems_allowed;
> +			pol->w.cpuset_mems_allowed = mems_allowed;
>  	}
>  
>  	ret = mpol_ops[pol->mode].create(pol,
> 

Should this patch be added to 2.6.31-rc4 to prevent the kernel panic while 
hotplug notifiers are being added to mempolicies?
--
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/