linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] kernel BUG at mm/vmacache.c:85!

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, 28 Apr 2014 15:58:02 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>
Cc:	"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
	Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
	"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] kernel BUG at mm/vmacache.c:85!

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com> wrote:
>
> Is this perhaps a KVM guest? fwiw I see CONFIG_KVM_ASYNC_PF=y which is a
> user of use_mm().

So I tried to look through these guys, and that was one of the ones I looked at.

It's using use_mm(), but it's only called through schedule_work().
Which *should* mean that it's in a kernel thread and
vmacache_valid_mm() will not be true.

HOWEVER.

The whole "we don't use the vma cache on kernel threads" does seem to
be a pretty fragile approach to the whole workqueue etc issue. I think
we always use a kernel thread for workqueue entries, but at the same
time I'm not 100% convinced that we should *rely* on that kind of
behavior. I don't think that it's necessarily fundamentally guaranteed
conceptually - I could see, for example, some user of "flush_work()"
deciding to run the work *synchronously* within the context of the
process that does the flushing.

Now, I don't think we actually do that, but my point is that I think
it's a bit dangerous to just say "only kernel threads do use_mm(), and
work entries are always done by kernel threads, so let's disable vma
caching for kernel threads". It may be *true*, but it's a very
indirect kind of true.

That's why I think we might be better off saying "let's just
invalidate the vmacache in use_mm(), and not care about who does it".
No subtle indirect logic about why the caching is safe in one context
but not another.

But quite frankly, I grepped for things that set "tsk->mm", and apart
from clearing it on exit, the only uses I found was copy_mm() (which
does that vmacache_flush()) and use_mm(). And all the use_mm() cases
_seem_ to be in kernel threads, and that first BUG_ON() didn't have a
very complex call chain at all, just a regular page fault from udevd.

So it might just be some really nasty corruption totally unrelated to
the vmacache, and those preceding odd udevd-work and kdump faults
could be related.

             Linus
--
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/