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]

Message-ID: <CA+55aFwLSW3V76Y_O37Y8r_yaKQ+y0VMk=6SEEBpeFfGzsJUKA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:57:04 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>,
	"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>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] kernel BUG at mm/vmacache.c:85!

On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> unuse_mm() leaves current->mm at NULL so we'd hear about it pretty
> quickly if a user task was running use_mm/unuse_mm.

Yes.

> I think so.  Maybe it's time to cook up a debug patch for Srivatsa to
> use?  Dump the vma cache when the bug hits, or wire up some trace
> points.  Or perhaps plain old printks - it seems to be happening pretty
> early in boot.

Well, I think Srivatsa has only seen it once, and wasn't able to
reproduce it, so we'd have to make it happen more first.

> Are there additional sanity checks we can perform at cache addition
> time?

I wouldn't really expect it to happen at cache addition time, since
that's really quite simple. There's only one caller of
vmacache_update(), namely find_vma(). And vmacache_update() does the
same sanity check that vmacache lookup does (ie check that the
passed-on mm is the current thread mm, and that we're not a kernel
thread).

I'd be more inclined to think it's a missing invalidate, but I can
only think of two reasons to invalidate:

 - the vma itself went away from the mm, got free'd/reused, and so
vm_mm changes..

   But then we'd have to remove it from the rb-tree, and both callers
of vma_rb_erase() do a vmacache_invalidate()

 - the mm of a thread changed

   This is exec, use_mm(), and fork() (and fork really only just
because we copy the vmacache).

   exec and fork do that "vmacache_flush(tsk)", which is why I was
looking at use_mm().

So it all looks sane. Which only means that I must obviously be
missing some case. Which case am I missing?

                  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/