| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1349801921-16598-4-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 17:58:39 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: Stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.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()
commit b22d127a39ddd10d93deee3d96e643657ad53a49 upstream.
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>
Acked-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Reviewed-by: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...il.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
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 f0728ae..b2f12ec 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 */
--
1.7.9.2
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists