linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm,migration: Prevent rmap_walk_[anon|ksm] seeing the wrong VMA information

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: <20100428175822.GB510@random.random>
Date:	Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:58:22 +0200
From:	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
To:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc:	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm,migration: Prevent rmap_walk_[anon|ksm] seeing
 the wrong VMA information

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 06:34:17PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> Well, in the easiest case, the details of the VMA (particularly vm_start
> and vm_pgoff) can confuse callers of vma_address during rmap_walk. In the
> case of migration, it will return other false positives or negatives.

false positives are fine ;). Only problems are false negatives...

> > After you fix vma_adjust to be as safe as expand_downards you've also
> > to take care of the rmap_walk that may run on a page->mapping =
> > anon_vma that isn't the vma->anon_vma and you're not taking that
> > anon_vma->lock of the shared page, when you change the vma
> > vm_pgoff/vm_start.
> 
> Is this not what the try-lock-different-vmas-or-backoff-and-retry logic
> in patch 2 is doing or am I missing something else?

yes exactly. This is why patch 2 can't be dropped, both for the
vma_adjust and the rmap_walk that are really two separate issues.

> How so? The old PTE should have been left in place, the page count of
> the page remain positive and migration not occur.

Right only problem is for remove_migration_ptes (and for both
split_huge_page rmap_walks). For migrate the only issue is the second
rmap_walk.

> Because the list could be very large, it would make more sense to
> introduce the shared lock if this is what was required.

Kind of agree, we'll see...
--
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/