linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] swapfile: avoid NULL pointer dereference in swapon when s

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: <4AC49B95.2040504@suse.de>
Date:	Thu, 01 Oct 2009 17:37:49 +0530
From:	Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman@...e.de>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>
CC:	Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] swapfile: avoid NULL pointer dereference in swapon when
 s_bdev is NULL

Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Suresh Jayaraman wrote:
>> Yeah, perhaps. I stumbled upon one more of such error - a NULL pointer
>> dereference in blkdev_issue_discard() called from get_swap_page() when I ran
>> memhog, a simple program to generate a memory hog with Swap over NFS patches.
>>
>> The call sequence is add_to_swap() -> get_swap_page() ->  scan_swap_map()
>> -> discard_swap_cluster() -> blkdev_issue_discard().
>>
>> Wrapping the code around a NULL check fixes the Oops for me.
> 
> That's odd: scan_swap_map() should only discard_swap_cluster() if
> SWP_DISCARDABLE got set, and your first patch made sure that it wasn't.

I forgot to mention, this is not on loopback NFS mount but an remote NFS
mount (so possibly s_bdev is not NULL) when doing swapon. The oops was
triggered when memhog program tries to use the swap space on the newly
created swapfile on NFS. I have not completely investigated the issue,
perhaps s_bdev is not being set when it ought to be..

> So I don't think this second patch should be necessary: you did have
> your first applied when you found this?

yes, I had the first patch applied when it oopsed and I don't use SSD at
all.

> I wonder if there's a funny little issue like si->lowest_alloc not
> being reset to 0 where it should be.  Were you switching between
> NFS swap and SSD swap in your testing?

No.

Thanks,

-- 
Suresh Jayaraman
--
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/