| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <6B2A6E60C06CCC42AE31809BF572352B010E240634@MTLDAG02.mtl.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 11:25:09 +0000
From: Shachar Raindel <raindel@...lanox.com>
To: Shawn Bohrer <shawn.bohrer@...il.com>,
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-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"tomk@...advisors.com" <tomk@...advisors.com>,
Yishai Hadas <yishaih@...lanox.com>,
Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
Haggai Eran <haggaie@...lanox.com>,
Shawn Bohrer <sbohrer@...advisors.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] ib_umem_release should decrement mm->pinned_vm from
ib_umem_get
Hi,
Generally speaking, code now looks better.
However, I think you have a resource leak in your code. See below.
Thanks,
--Shachar
> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-rdma-owner@...r.kernel.org [mailto:linux-rdma-
> owner@...r.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Shawn Bohrer
> Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 12:41 AM
> To: Roland Dreier
> Cc: Christoph Lameter; Sean Hefty; Hal Rosenstock; linux-
> rdma@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> tomk@...advisors.com; Yishai Hadas; Or Gerlitz; Haggai Eran; Shawn Bohrer
> Subject: [PATCH v2] ib_umem_release should decrement mm->pinned_vm
> from ib_umem_get
>
> 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 pid 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>
> ---
>
> v2 changes:
> * Updated to use get_task_pid to avoid keeping a reference to the mm
>
> I've run this patch on our test pool for general testing for a few days
> and today verified that it solves the reported issue above on our
> production machines.
>
>
> drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c | 18 ++++++++++++------
> include/rdma/ib_umem.h | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c
> b/drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c
> index a3a2e9c..01750d6 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->pid = get_task_pid(current, PIDTYPE_PID);
> /*
> * 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);
> + put_pid(umem->pid);
> kfree(umem);
> } else
> current->mm->pinned_vm = locked;
> @@ -230,15 +232,18 @@ void ib_umem_release(struct ib_umem *umem)
> {
> struct ib_ucontext *context = umem->context;
> struct mm_struct *mm;
> + struct task_struct *task;
> unsigned long diff;
>
> __ib_umem_release(umem->context->device, umem, 1);
>
> - mm = get_task_mm(current);
> - if (!mm) {
> - kfree(umem);
> - return;
> - }
> + task = get_pid_task(umem->pid, PIDTYPE_PID);
> + put_pid(umem->pid);
> + if (!task)
> + goto out;
> + mm = get_task_mm(task);
> + if (!mm)
> + goto out;
>
I think you are leaking task structs here. You need a put_task (task) once you got an mm (or failed to get one)
> diff = PAGE_ALIGN(umem->length + umem->offset) >>
> PAGE_SHIFT;
>
> @@ -262,9 +267,10 @@ void ib_umem_release(struct ib_umem *umem)
> } else
> down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
>
> - current->mm->pinned_vm -= diff;
> + mm->pinned_vm -= diff;
> up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> mmput(mm);
> +out:
> kfree(umem);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(ib_umem_release);
> diff --git a/include/rdma/ib_umem.h b/include/rdma/ib_umem.h
> index 1ea0b65..a2bf41e 100644
> --- a/include/rdma/ib_umem.h
> +++ b/include/rdma/ib_umem.h
> @@ -47,6 +47,7 @@ struct ib_umem {
> int writable;
> int hugetlb;
> struct work_struct work;
> + struct pid *pid;
> struct mm_struct *mm;
> unsigned long diff;
> struct sg_table sg_head;
> --
> 1.7.7.6
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
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