linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: per-vma instantiation mutexes

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:	Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:34:24 +0900
From:	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Cc:	David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...nvz.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
	"AneeshKumarK.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: per-vma instantiation mutexes

On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 09:51:21PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On 07/15/2013 03:24 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> >On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 08:16:44PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> 
> >>>Reading the existing comment, this change looks very suspicious to me.
> >>>A per-vma mutex is just not going to provide the necessary exclusion, is
> >>>it?  (But I recall next to nothing about these regions and
> >>>reservations.)
> >
> >A per-VMA lock is definitely wrong.  I think it handles one form of
> >the race, between threads sharing a VM on a MAP_PRIVATE mapping.
> >However another form of the race can and does occur between different
> >MAP_SHARED VMAs in the same or different processes.  I think there may
> >be edge cases involving mremap() and MAP_PRIVATE that will also be
> >missed by a per-VMA lock.
> >
> >Note that the libhugetlbfs testsuite contains tests for both PRIVATE
> >and SHARED variants of the race.
> 
> Can we get away with simply using a mutex in the file?
> Say vma->vm_file->mapping->i_mmap_mutex?

I totally agree with this approach :)

> 
> That might help with multiple processes initializing
> multiple shared memory segments at the same time, and
> should not hurt the case of a process mapping its own
> hugetlbfs area.
> 
> It might have the potential to hurt when getting private
> copies on a MAP_PRIVATE area, though.  I have no idea
> how common it is for multiple processes to MAP_PRIVATE
> the same hugetlbfs file, though...

Currently, getting private copies on a MAP_PRIVATE area is also
serialized by hugetlb_instantiation_mutex.
How do we get worse with your approach?

BTW, we have one race problem related to hugetlb_instantiation_mutex.
It is not right protection for region structure handling. We map the
area without holding a hugetlb_instantiation_mutex, so there is
race condition between mapping a new area and faulting the other area.
Am I missing?

Thanks.

> 
> -- 
> All rights reversed
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@...ck.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@...ck.org"> email@...ck.org </a>
--
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/