linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] NFS: Fix a memory leak in nfs

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: <20101201123929.ab7cef1d.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Wed, 1 Dec 2010 12:39:29 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
Cc:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Nick Bowler <nbowler@...iptictech.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>, Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] NFS: Fix a memory leak in nfs_readdir

On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:05:38 -0500
Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 11:23 -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 08:17 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > include/linux/fs.h |    1 +
> > > >  mm/vmscan.c        |    3 +++
> > > >  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
> > > > index c9e06cc..090f0ea 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> > > > @@ -602,6 +602,7 @@ struct address_space_operations {
> > > >         sector_t (*bmap)(struct address_space *, sector_t);
> > > >         void (*invalidatepage) (struct page *, unsigned long);
> > > >         int (*releasepage) (struct page *, gfp_t);
> > > > +       void (*freepage)(struct page *);
> > > >         ssize_t (*direct_IO)(int, struct kiocb *, const struct iovec
> > > > *iov,
> > > >                         loff_t offset, unsigned long nr_segs);
> > > >         int (*get_xip_mem)(struct address_space *, pgoff_t, int,
> > > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > > index d31d7ce..1accb01 100644
> > > > --- a/mm/vmscan.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c
> > > > @@ -499,6 +499,9 @@ static int __remove_mapping(struct address_space
> > > > *mapping, struct page *page)
> > > >                 mem_cgroup_uncharge_cache_page(page);
> > > >         }
> > > >  
> > > > +       if (mapping->a_ops->freepage)
> > > > +               mapping->a_ops->freepage(page);
> > > 
> > > Hmm... Looking again at the problem, it appears that the same callback
> > > needs to be added to truncate_complete_page() and
> > > invalidate_complete_page2(). Otherwise we end up in a situation where
> > > the page can sometimes be removed from the page cache without calling
> > > freepage().
> > > 
> > > > +
> > > >         return 1;
> > > >  
> > > >  cannot_free:
> > 
> > Yes, I was wondering quite how we would define this ->freepage thing,
> > if it gets called from one place that removes from page cache and not
> > from others.
> > 
> > Another minor problem with it: it would probably need to take the
> > struct address_space *mapping as arg as well as struct page *page:
> > because by this time page->mapping has been reset to NULL.
> > 
> > But I'm not at all keen on adding a calllback in this very special
> > frozen-to-0-references place: please let's not do it without an okay
> > from Nick Piggin (now Cc'ed).
> > 
> > I agree completely with what Linus said originally about how the
> > page cannot be freed while there's a reference to it, and it should
> > be possible to work this without your additional page locks.
> > 
> > Your ->releasepage should be able to judge whether the page is likely
> > (not certain) to be freed - page_count 3? 1 for the page cache, 1 for
> > the page_private reference, 1 for vmscan's reference, I think.  Then
> > it can mark !PageUptodate and proceed with freeing the stuff you had
> > allocated, undo page_has_private and its reference, and return 1 (or
> > return 0 if it decides to hold on to the page).
> 
> That is very brittle. I'd prefer not to have to scan linux-mm every week
> in order to find out if someone changed the page_count.
> 
> However, while reading Documentation/filesystems/vfs.txt (in order to
> add documentation for freepage) I was surprised to read that the
> ->releasepage() is itself supposed to be allowed to actually remove the
> page from the address space if it so desires.

That doesn't sound right.  It came from Neil in 2006.

Neil, what were you thinking there?   Did you find such a ->releasepage()?

> Looking at the actual code in shrink_page_list() and friends I can't see
> how that can possibly fail to break things, but if it were true, then
> that might enable us to call remove_mapping() in order to safely free
> the page before it gets cleared.
> 
--
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/