linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ib_umem_release should decrement mm->pinned_vm from ib_umem

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: <20140820232212.GA5487@sbohrermbp13-local.rgmadvisors.com>
Date:	Wed, 20 Aug 2014 18:22:12 -0500
From:	Shawn Bohrer <shawn.bohrer@...il.com>
To:	Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
	Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
	Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
	linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	tomk@...advisors.com, Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@...advisors.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ib_umem_release should decrement mm->pinned_vm from
 ib_umem_get

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 11:27:35AM -0500, Shawn Bohrer wrote:
> From: Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@...advisors.com>
> 
> In debugging an application that receives -ENOMEM from ib_reg_mr() I
> found that ib_umem_get() can fail because the pinned_vm count has
> wrapped causing it to always be larger than the lock limit even with
> RLIMIT_MEMLOCK set to RLIM_INFINITY.
> 
> The wrapping of pinned_vm occurs because the process that calls
> ib_reg_mr() will have its mm->pinned_vm count incremented.  Later a
> different process with a different mm_struct than the one that allocated
> the ib_umem struct ends up releasing it which results in decrementing
> the new processes mm->pinned_vm count past zero and wrapping.
> 
> I'm not entirely sure what circumstances cause a different process to
> release the ib_umem than the one that allocated it but the kernel stack
> trace of the freeing process from my situation looks like the following:
> 
> Call Trace:
>  [<ffffffff814d64b1>] dump_stack+0x19/0x1b
>  [<ffffffffa0b522a5>] ib_umem_release+0x1f5/0x200 [ib_core]
>  [<ffffffffa0b90681>] mlx4_ib_destroy_qp+0x241/0x440 [mlx4_ib]
>  [<ffffffffa0b4d93c>] ib_destroy_qp+0x12c/0x170 [ib_core]
>  [<ffffffffa0cc7129>] ib_uverbs_close+0x259/0x4e0 [ib_uverbs]
>  [<ffffffff81141cba>] __fput+0xba/0x240
>  [<ffffffff81141e4e>] ____fput+0xe/0x10
>  [<ffffffff81060894>] task_work_run+0xc4/0xe0
>  [<ffffffff810029e5>] do_notify_resume+0x95/0xa0
>  [<ffffffff814e3dd0>] int_signal+0x12/0x17
> 
> The following patch fixes the issue by storing the mm_struct of the
> process that calls ib_umem_get() so that ib_umem_release and/or
> ib_umem_account() can properly decrement the pinned_vm count of the
> correct mm_struct.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@...advisors.com>
> ---
>  drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c |   17 ++++++++---------
>  1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c
> index a3a2e9c..32699024 100644
> --- a/drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c
> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c
> @@ -105,6 +105,7 @@ struct ib_umem *ib_umem_get(struct ib_ucontext *context, unsigned long addr,
>  	umem->length    = size;
>  	umem->offset    = addr & ~PAGE_MASK;
>  	umem->page_size = PAGE_SIZE;
> +	umem->mm        = get_task_mm(current);
>  	/*
>  	 * We ask for writable memory if any access flags other than
>  	 * "remote read" are set.  "Local write" and "remote write"
> @@ -198,6 +199,7 @@ out:
>  	if (ret < 0) {
>  		if (need_release)
>  			__ib_umem_release(context->device, umem, 0);
> +		mmput(umem->mm);
>  		kfree(umem);
>  	} else
>  		current->mm->pinned_vm = locked;
> @@ -229,13 +231,11 @@ static void ib_umem_account(struct work_struct *work)
>  void ib_umem_release(struct ib_umem *umem)
>  {
>  	struct ib_ucontext *context = umem->context;
> -	struct mm_struct *mm;
>  	unsigned long diff;
>  
>  	__ib_umem_release(umem->context->device, umem, 1);
>  
> -	mm = get_task_mm(current);
> -	if (!mm) {
> +	if (!umem->mm) {
>  		kfree(umem);
>  		return;
>  	}
> @@ -251,20 +251,19 @@ void ib_umem_release(struct ib_umem *umem)
>  	 * we defer the vm_locked accounting to the system workqueue.
>  	 */
>  	if (context->closing) {
> -		if (!down_write_trylock(&mm->mmap_sem)) {
> +		if (!down_write_trylock(&umem->mm->mmap_sem)) {
>  			INIT_WORK(&umem->work, ib_umem_account);
> -			umem->mm   = mm;
>  			umem->diff = diff;
>  
>  			queue_work(ib_wq, &umem->work);
>  			return;
>  		}
>  	} else
> -		down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> +		down_write(&umem->mm->mmap_sem);
>  
> -	current->mm->pinned_vm -= diff;
> -	up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> -	mmput(mm);
> +	umem->mm->pinned_vm -= diff;
> +	up_write(&umem->mm->mmap_sem);
> +	mmput(umem->mm);
>  	kfree(umem);
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(ib_umem_release);

It doesn't look like this has been applied yet.  Does anyone have any
feedback?

Thanks,
Shawn
--
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/