linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: fix hang on anon

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]

Date:	Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:56:48 -0500 (CDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
cc:	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix hang on anon_vma->root->lock

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010, Hugh Dickins wrote:

> Nothing ensures that the root pointer was not changed after the
> ACCESS_ONCE, that's exactly why we use ACCESS_ONCE there: once we've
> got the lock and realize that what we've locked may not be what we
> wanted (or may change from what we were wanting at any moment, the
> page no longer being mapped there - but in that case we no longer want
> it), we have to be sure to unlock the one we locked, rather than the
> one which anon_vma->root might subsequently point to.

I do not see any check after we have taken the lock to verify that we
locked the correct object. Was there a second version of the patch?

> > Since there is no lock taken before the mapped check none of the
> > earlier reads from the anon vma structure nor the page mapped check
> > necessarily reflect a single state of the anon_vma.
>
> There's no lock (other than RCU's read "lock")  taken before the
> original mapped check, and that's important, otherwise our attempt to
> lock might actually spinon or corrupt something that was long ago an
> anon_vma.  But we do take the anon_vma->root->lock before the second
> mapped check which I added.  If the page is still mapped at the point

You then are using an object from the anon_vma (the pointer) without a
lock! This is unstable therefore unless there are other constraints. The
anon_vma->lock must be taken before derefencing that pointer. The page may
have been unmapped and mapped again between the two checks. Unlikely but
possible.

> of that second check, then we know that we got the right anon_vma,

I do not see a second check (*after* taking the lock) in the patch and the
way the lock is taken can be a problem in itself.

--
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/