linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: Fix NULL ptr dereference in __count_immobile

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20120112173536.db529713.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Thu, 12 Jan 2012 17:35:36 +0900
From:	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc:	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Fix NULL ptr dereference in __count_immobile_pages

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:27:22 +0100
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz> wrote:

> On Thu 12-01-12 11:17:02, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 09:48:02 +0100
> > Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tue 10-01-12 13:31:08, David Rientjes wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 10 Jan 2012, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > >  mm/page_alloc.c |   11 +++++++++++
> > > > >  1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > > > index 2b8ba3a..485be89 100644
> > > > > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > > > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > > > > @@ -5608,6 +5608,17 @@ __count_immobile_pages(struct zone *zone, struct page *page, int count)
> > > > >  bool is_pageblock_removable_nolock(struct page *page)
> > > > >  {
> > > > >  	struct zone *zone = page_zone(page);
> > > > > +	unsigned long pfn = page_to_pfn(page);
> > > > > +
> > 
> > Hmm, I don't like to use page_zone() when we know the page may not be initialized.
> > Shouldn't we add
> > 
> > 	if (!node_online(page_to_nid(page))
> > 		return false;
> > ?
> 
> How is this different? The node won't be initialized in page flags as
> well.
> 

page_zone(page) is
==
static inline struct zone *page_zone(const struct page *page)
{
        return &NODE_DATA(page_to_nid(page))->node_zones[page_zonenum(page)];
}
==

Then, if the page is unitialized, 

   &(NODE_DATA(0)->node_zones[0])

If NODE_DATA(0) is NULL, node_zones[0] is NULL just because zone array is placed
on the top of struct pglist_data.

I never think someone may change the layout but...Hmm, just a nitpick.
please do as you like.


> > But...hmm. I think we should return 'true' here for removing a section with a hole
> > finally....(Now, false will be safe.)
> 
> Those pages are reserved (for BIOS I guess) in this particular case so I
> do not think it is safe to claim that the block is removable. Or am I
> missing something?
> 

We can't know it's reserved by BIOS or it's just a memory hole by the fact
the page wasn't initialized.


Thanks,
-Kame

--
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/