linux-kernel - Re: could you clarify mm/mempolicy: fix !vma in new_vma

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, 6 Jan 2014 20:45:54 +0800
From:	Bob Liu <lliubbo@...il.com>
To:	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc:	Wanpeng Li <liwanp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
	Bob Liu <bob.liu@...cle.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: could you clarify mm/mempolicy: fix !vma in new_vma_page()

Hi Michal,

On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz> wrote:
> Hi Wanpeng Li,
> I have just noticed 11c731e81bb0 (mm/mempolicy: fix !vma in
> new_vma_page()) and I am not sure I understand it. Your changelog claims
> "
>     page_address_in_vma() may still return -EFAULT because of many other
>     conditions in it.  As a result the while loop in new_vma_page() may end
>     with vma=NULL.
> "
>
> And the patch handles hugetlb case only. I was wondering what are those
> "other conditions" that failed in the BUG_ON mentioned in the changelog?
> Could you be more specific please?
>

Sorry for the confusion caused.
The code of new_vma_page() used to like this:
1193         while (vma) {
1194                 address = page_address_in_vma(page, vma);
1195                 if (address != -EFAULT)
1196                         break;
1197                 vma = vma->vm_next;
1198         }
1199         /*
1200          * queue_pages_range() confirms that @page belongs to some vma,
1201          * so vma shouldn't be NULL.
1202          */
1203         BUG_ON(!vma);
1204
1205         if (PageHuge(page))
1206                 return alloc_huge_page_noerr(vma, address, 1);
1207         return alloc_page_vma(GFP_HIGHUSER_MOVABLE, vma, address);

The BUG_ON() was triggered and my idea was that even
queue_pages_range() confirms @page belongs to some vma,
page_address_in_vma() may still return -EFAULT because of below checks
in page_address_in_vma().

544         if (PageAnon(page)) {
 545                 struct anon_vma *page__anon_vma = page_anon_vma(page);
 546                 /*
 547                  * Note: swapoff's unuse_vma() is more efficient with this
 548                  * check, and needs it to match anon_vma when KSM
is active.
 549                  */
 550                 if (!vma->anon_vma || !page__anon_vma ||
 551                     vma->anon_vma->root != page__anon_vma->root)
 552                         return -EFAULT;
 553         } else if (page->mapping && !(vma->vm_flags & VM_NONLINEAR)) {
 554                 if (!vma->vm_file ||
 555                     vma->vm_file->f_mapping != page->mapping)
 556                         return -EFAULT;
 557         } else
 558                 return -EFAULT;

That's the "other conditions" and the reason why we can't use
BUG_ON(!vma) in new_vma_page().

-- 
Regards,
--Bob
--
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/