linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: hugetlbfs: Close race during teardown of hugetlbfs shared page tables v2

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:	Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:54:43 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
cc:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
	Ken Chen <kenchen@...gle.com>,
	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Larry Woodman <lwoodman@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: hugetlbfs: Close race during teardown of hugetlbfs
 shared page tables v2

On Thu, 26 Jul 2012, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 07/20/2012 09:49 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > This V2 is still the mmap_sem approach that fixes a potential deadlock
> > problem pointed out by Michal.
> 
> Larry and I were looking around the hugetlb code some
> more, and found what looks like yet another race.
> 
> In hugetlb_no_page, we have the following code:
> 
> 
>         spin_lock(&mm->page_table_lock);
>         size = i_size_read(mapping->host) >> huge_page_shift(h);
>         if (idx >= size)
>                 goto backout;
> 
>         ret = 0;
>         if (!huge_pte_none(huge_ptep_get(ptep)))
>                 goto backout;
> 
>         if (anon_rmap)
>                 hugepage_add_new_anon_rmap(page, vma, address);
>         else
>                 page_dup_rmap(page);
>         new_pte = make_huge_pte(vma, page, ((vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE)
>                                 && (vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED)));
>         set_huge_pte_at(mm, address, ptep, new_pte);
> 	...
> 	spin_unlock(&mm->page_table_lock);
> 
> Notice how we check !huge_pte_none with our own
> mm->page_table_lock held.
> 
> This offers no protection at all against other
> processes, that also hold their own page_table_lock.
> 
> In short, it looks like it is possible for multiple
> processes to go through the above code simultaneously,
> potentially resulting in:
> 
> 1) one process overwriting the pte just created by
>    another process
> 
> 2) data corruption, as one partially written page
>    gets superceded by an newly zeroed page, but no
>    TLB invalidates get sent to other CPUs
> 
> 3) a memory leak of a huge page
> 
> Is there anything that would make this race impossible,
> or is this a real bug?

I believe it's protected by the unloved hugetlb_instantiation_mutex.

> 
> If so, are there more like it in the hugetlbfs code?

What, more than one bug in that code?
Surely that would defy the laws of probability ;)

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/