[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140324132058.GH4173@kvack.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 09:20:58 -0400
From: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
To: Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Tang Chen <tangchen@...fujitsu.com>, Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, jmoyer@...hat.com,
kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>,
miaox@...fujitsu.com, linux-aio@...ck.org,
fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [V2 PATCH 1/2] aio: clean up aio_migratepage() and related code much
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 06:59:30PM +0800, Gu Zheng wrote:
> As the page migration framework holds lock_page() to protect the pages
> (both old and new) while migrating, so while the page migrating, both
> of old page and new page are locked. And the aio context teardown
> routine will call *truncate*(in put_aio_ring_file()) to truncate
> pagecache which needs to acquire page_lock() for each page one by one.
> So there is a native mutual exclusion between *migrate page* v.s. truncate().
>
> If put_aio_ring_file() is called at first of the context teardown flow
> (aio_free_ring). Then, page migration and ctx freeing will have mutual
> execution guarded by lock_page() v.s. truncate(). Once a page is removed
> from radix-tree, it will not be migrated. On the other hand, the context
> can not be freed while the page migraiton are ongoing.
Sorry, but your change to remove the taking of ->private_lock in
put_aio_ring_file() is not safe. If a malicious user reinstantiates
any pages in the ring buffer's mmaping, there is nothing protecting
the system against incoherent accesses of ->ring_pages. One possible
way of making this occur would be to use mremap() to expand the size
of the mapping or move it to a different location in the user process'
address space. Yes, it's a tiny race, but it's possible. There is
absolutely no reason to remove this locking -- ring teardown is
hardly a performance sensitive code path. I'm going to stick with my
approach instead.
-ben
--
"Thought is the essence of where you are now."
--
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