linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] ashmem: Fix ashmem

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: <20130516094559.4d2c9212.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 16 May 2013 09:45:59 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Robert Love <rlove@...gle.com>
Cc:	Raul Xiong <raulxiong@...il.com>,
	Neil Zhang <glacier1980@...il.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Shankar Brahadeeswaran <shankoo77@...il.com>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Bjorn Bringert <bringert@...gle.com>,
	devel <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Anjana V Kumar <anjanavk12@...il.com>,
	linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] ashmem: Fix ashmem_shrink deadlock.

On Thu, 16 May 2013 09:44:49 -0400 Robert Love <rlove@...gle.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Raul Xiong <raulxiong@...il.com> wrote:
> > The issue happens in such sequence:
> > ashmem_mmap acquired ashmem_mutex --> ashmem_mutex:shmem_file_setup
> > called kmem_cache_alloc --> shrink due to low memory --> ashmem_shrink
> > tries to acquire the same ashmem_mutex -- it blocks here.
> >
> > I think this reports the bug clearly. Please have a look.
> 
> There is no debate about the nature of the bug. Only the fix.
> 
> My mutex_trylock patch fixes the problem. I prefer that solution.
> 
> Andrew's suggestion of GFP_ATOMIC won't work as we'd have to propagate
> that down into shmem and elsewhere.

s/won't work/impractical/

A better approach would be to add a new __GFP_NOSHRINKERS, but it's all
variations on a theme.

> Using PF_MEMALLOC will work. You'd want to define something like:
> 
> static int set_memalloc(void)
> {
>         if (current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC)
>                 return 0;
>         current->flags |= PF_MEMALLOC;
>         return 1;
> }
> 
> static void clear_memalloc(int memalloc)
> {
>         if (memalloc)
>                 current->flags &= ~PF_MEMALLOC;
> }
> 
> and then set/clear PF_MEMALLOC around every memory allocation and
> function that descends into a memory allocation. As said I prefer my
> solution but if someone wants to put together a patch with this
> approach, fine by me.

The mutex_trylock(ashmem_mutex) will actually have the best
performance, because it skips the least amount of memory reclaim
opportunities.

But it still sucks!  The real problem is that there exists a lock
called "ashmem_mutex", taken by both the high-level mmap() and by the
low-level shrinker.  And taken by everything else too!  The ashmem
locking is pretty crude...

What is the mutex_lock() in ashmem_mmap() actually protecting?  I don't
see much, apart from perhaps some incidental races around the contents
of the file's ashmem_area, and those could/should be protected by a
per-object lock, not a global one?



--
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/