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: <alpine.LSU.2.00.1012011436250.20449@tigran.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date:	Wed, 1 Dec 2010 14:43:42 -0800 (PST)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
	Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
	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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] NFS: Fix a memory leak in nfs_readdir

On Wed, 1 Dec 2010, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:51:12 -0500
> > Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 13:38 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >> > Probably on most call paths we'll be OK - if a process is in the middle
> >> > of a file truncate, holdin a file* ref which holds an inode ref then
> >> > nobody will be unmounting that fs and hence nobody will be unloading
> >> > that module.
> >> >
> >> > However on the random_code->alloc_page->vmscan->releasepage path, none
> >> > of that applies.
> >>
> >> Just out of interest, what ensures that the mapping is still around for
> >> the 'spin_unlock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);' in __remove_mapping()?
> >
> > Nothing, afacit.
> 
> No, we're good.
> 
> Module unload has to go through a "stop_machine()" cycle, and that in
> turn requires an idle period for everything. And just a preemption
> reschedule isn't enough for that.
> 
> So what is sufficient is that
> 
>  - we had the page locked and on the mapping
> 
>    This implies that we had an inode reference to the module, and the
> page lock means that the inode reference cannot go away (because it
> will involve invalidate-pages etc)

I'm not so sure of that: doesn't it test inode->i_data.nrpages in
various places, and skip ahead if that is already 0?  I don't see
the necessary serialization when nrpages comes down to 0.

> 
>  - we're not sleeping after __remove_mapping, so unload can't happen afterwards.
> 
> A _lot_ of the module races depend on that latter thing. We have
> almost no cases that are strictly about actual reference counts etc.

Okay, I'm reassured on my module unload point; but not on the
question of safety of spin_unlock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock)
which Trond lobbed back in return.

Hugh
--
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/