[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1004010747540.3707@i5.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2010 08:10:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>, San Mehat <san@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
Dave Hansen <haveblue@...ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] proc: pagemap: Hold mmap_sem during page walk
On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
>
> From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
>
> In initial design, walk_page_range() was designed just for walking page table and
> it didn't require mmap_sem. Now, find_vma() etc.. are used in walk_page_range()
> and we need mmap_sem around it.
>
> This patch adds mmap_sem around walk_page_range().
>
> Because /proc/<pid>/pagemap's callback routine use put_user(), we have to get
> rid of it to do sane fix.
>
> Changelog:
> - fixed start_vaddr calculation
> - removed unnecessary cast.
> - removed unnecessary change in smaps.
> - use GFP_TEMPORARY instead of GFP_KERNEL
> - use min().
Looks mostly correct to me (but just looking at the source, no testing,
obviously). And I like how the double buffering removes more lines of code
than it adds.
However, I think there is a subtle problem with this:
> + while (count && (start_vaddr < end_vaddr)) {
> + int len;
> + unsigned long end;
> +
> + pm.pos = 0;
> + end = min(start_vaddr + PAGEMAP_WALK_SIZE, end_vaddr);
> + down_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> + ret = walk_page_range(start_vaddr, end, &pagemap_walk);
> + up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> + start_vaddr += PAGEMAP_WALK_SIZE;
I think "start_vaddr + PAGEMAP_WALK_SIZE" might overflow, and then 'end'
ends up being odd. You'll never notice on architectures where the user
space doesn't go all the way up to the end (walk_page_range will return 0
etc), but it will do the wrong thing if 'start' is close to the end, end
is _at_ the end, and you'll not be able to read that range (because of the
overflow).
So I do think you should do something like
end = start_vaddr + PAGEMAP_WALK_SIZE;
/* overflow? or final chunk? */
if (end < start_vaddr || end > end_vaddr)
end = end_vaddr;
instead of using 'min()'.
(This only matters if TASK_SIZE_OF() can be ~0ul, but I think that can
happen on sparc, for example)
Linus
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists