linux-kernel - [PATCH 3/5] mempolicy: fix a race in shared_policy

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:	Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:36:32 +0100
From:	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc:	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>, Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: [PATCH 3/5] mempolicy: fix a race in shared_policy_replace()

shared_policy_replace() use of sp_alloc() is unsafe. 1) sp_node cannot
be dereferenced if sp->lock is not held and 2) another thread can modify
sp_node between spin_unlock for allocating a new sp node and next spin_lock.
The bug was introduced before 2.6.12-rc2.

Kosaki's original patch for this problem was to allocate an sp node and policy
within shared_policy_replace and initialise it when the lock is reacquired. I
was not keen on this approach because it partially duplicates sp_alloc(). As
the paths were sp->lock is taken are not that performance critical this
patch converts sp->lock to sp->mutex so it can sleep when calling sp_alloc().

[kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com: Original patch]
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
---
 include/linux/mempolicy.h |    2 +-
 mm/mempolicy.c            |   37 ++++++++++++++++---------------------
 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/mempolicy.h b/include/linux/mempolicy.h
index 95b738c..df08254 100644
--- a/include/linux/mempolicy.h
+++ b/include/linux/mempolicy.h
@@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ struct sp_node {
 
 struct shared_policy {
 	struct rb_root root;
-	spinlock_t lock;
+	struct mutex mutex;
 };
 
 void mpol_shared_policy_init(struct shared_policy *sp, struct mempolicy *mpol);
diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
index 8025720..d297929 100644
--- a/mm/mempolicy.c
+++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
@@ -2083,7 +2083,7 @@ bool __mpol_equal(struct mempolicy *a, struct mempolicy *b)
  */
 
 /* lookup first element intersecting start-end */
-/* Caller holds sp->lock */
+/* Caller holds sp->mutex */
 static struct sp_node *
 sp_lookup(struct shared_policy *sp, unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
 {
@@ -2147,13 +2147,13 @@ mpol_shared_policy_lookup(struct shared_policy *sp, unsigned long idx)
 
 	if (!sp->root.rb_node)
 		return NULL;
-	spin_lock(&sp->lock);
+	mutex_lock(&sp->mutex);
 	sn = sp_lookup(sp, idx, idx+1);
 	if (sn) {
 		mpol_get(sn->policy);
 		pol = sn->policy;
 	}
-	spin_unlock(&sp->lock);
+	mutex_unlock(&sp->mutex);
 	return pol;
 }
 
@@ -2193,10 +2193,10 @@ static struct sp_node *sp_alloc(unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
 static int shared_policy_replace(struct shared_policy *sp, unsigned long start,
 				 unsigned long end, struct sp_node *new)
 {
-	struct sp_node *n, *new2 = NULL;
+	struct sp_node *n;
+	int ret = 0;
 
-restart:
-	spin_lock(&sp->lock);
+	mutex_lock(&sp->mutex);
 	n = sp_lookup(sp, start, end);
 	/* Take care of old policies in the same range. */
 	while (n && n->start < end) {
@@ -2209,16 +2209,14 @@ restart:
 		} else {
 			/* Old policy spanning whole new range. */
 			if (n->end > end) {
+				struct sp_node *new2;
+				new2 = sp_alloc(end, n->end, n->policy);
 				if (!new2) {
-					spin_unlock(&sp->lock);
-					new2 = sp_alloc(end, n->end, n->policy);
-					if (!new2)
-						return -ENOMEM;
-					goto restart;
+					ret = -ENOMEM;
+					goto out;
 				}
 				n->end = start;
 				sp_insert(sp, new2);
-				new2 = NULL;
 				break;
 			} else
 				n->end = start;
@@ -2229,12 +2227,9 @@ restart:
 	}
 	if (new)
 		sp_insert(sp, new);
-	spin_unlock(&sp->lock);
-	if (new2) {
-		mpol_put(new2->policy);
-		kmem_cache_free(sn_cache, new2);
-	}
-	return 0;
+out:
+	mutex_unlock(&sp->mutex);
+	return ret;
 }
 
 /**
@@ -2252,7 +2247,7 @@ void mpol_shared_policy_init(struct shared_policy *sp, struct mempolicy *mpol)
 	int ret;
 
 	sp->root = RB_ROOT;		/* empty tree == default mempolicy */
-	spin_lock_init(&sp->lock);
+	mutex_init(&sp->mutex);
 
 	if (mpol) {
 		struct vm_area_struct pvma;
@@ -2318,7 +2313,7 @@ void mpol_free_shared_policy(struct shared_policy *p)
 
 	if (!p->root.rb_node)
 		return;
-	spin_lock(&p->lock);
+	mutex_lock(&p->mutex);
 	next = rb_first(&p->root);
 	while (next) {
 		n = rb_entry(next, struct sp_node, nd);
@@ -2327,7 +2322,7 @@ void mpol_free_shared_policy(struct shared_policy *p)
 		mpol_put(n->policy);
 		kmem_cache_free(sn_cache, n);
 	}
-	spin_unlock(&p->lock);
+	mutex_unlock(&p->mutex);
 }
 
 /* assumes fs == KERNEL_DS */
-- 
1.7.7

--
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/