| 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: <alpine.LSU.2.11.1409031649190.10884@eggly.anvils>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 17:20:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
To: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Naoya Horiguchi <nao.horiguchi@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] mm/hugetlb: fix getting refcount 0 page in
hugetlb_fault()
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014, Naoya Horiguchi wrote:
> When running the test which causes the race as shown in the previous patch,
> we can hit the BUG "get_page() on refcount 0 page" in hugetlb_fault().
>
> This race happens when pte turns into migration entry just after the first
> check of is_hugetlb_entry_migration() in hugetlb_fault() passed with false.
> To fix this, we need to check pte_present() again with holding ptl.
>
> This patch also reorders taking ptl and doing pte_page(), because pte_page()
> should be done in ptl. Due to this reordering, we need use trylock_page()
> in page != pagecache_page case to respect locking order.
>
> ChangeLog v3:
> - doing pte_page() and taking refcount under page table lock
> - check pte_present after taking ptl, which makes it unnecessary to use
> get_page_unless_zero()
> - use trylock_page in page != pagecache_page case
> - fixed target stable version
ChangeLog vN below the --- (or am I contradicting some other advice?)
>
> Fixes: 66aebce747ea ("hugetlb: fix race condition in hugetlb_fault()")
> Signed-off-by: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org> # [3.2+]
One bug, one warning, a couple of suboptimals...
> ---
> mm/hugetlb.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git mmotm-2014-08-25-16-52.orig/mm/hugetlb.c mmotm-2014-08-25-16-52/mm/hugetlb.c
> index c5345c5edb50..2aafe073cb06 100644
> --- mmotm-2014-08-25-16-52.orig/mm/hugetlb.c
> +++ mmotm-2014-08-25-16-52/mm/hugetlb.c
> @@ -3184,6 +3184,15 @@ int hugetlb_fault(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> vma, address);
> }
>
> + ptl = huge_pte_lock(h, mm, ptep);
> +
> + /* Check for a racing update before calling hugetlb_cow */
> + if (unlikely(!pte_same(entry, huge_ptep_get(ptep))))
> + goto out_ptl;
> +
> + if (!pte_present(entry))
> + goto out_ptl;
A comment on that test would be helpful. Is a migration entry
the only !pte_present() case you would expect to find there?
It would be better to test "entry" for this (or for being a migration
entry) higher up, just after getting "entry": less to unwind on error.
And better to call migration_entry_wait_huge(), after dropping locks,
before returning 0, so that we don't keep the cpu busy faulting while
the migration entry remains there. Maybe not important, but better.
Probably best done with a goto unwinding code at end of function.
(Whereas we don't worry about "wait"s in the !pte_same case,
because !pte_same indicates that change is already occurring:
it's prolonged pte_same cases that we want to get away from.)
> +
> /*
> * hugetlb_cow() requires page locks of pte_page(entry) and
> * pagecache_page, so here we need take the former one
> @@ -3192,22 +3201,17 @@ int hugetlb_fault(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> * so no worry about deadlock.
> */
> page = pte_page(entry);
> - get_page(page);
> if (page != pagecache_page)
> - lock_page(page);
> -
> - ptl = huge_pte_lockptr(h, mm, ptep);
> - spin_lock(ptl);
> - /* Check for a racing update before calling hugetlb_cow */
> - if (unlikely(!pte_same(entry, huge_ptep_get(ptep))))
> - goto out_ptl;
> + if (!trylock_page(page))
> + goto out_ptl;
And, again to avoid keeping the cpu busy refaulting, it would be better
to wait_on_page_locked(), after dropping locks, before returning 0;
probably best done with another goto end of function.
>
> + get_page(page);
>
> if (flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE) {
> if (!huge_pte_write(entry)) {
> ret = hugetlb_cow(mm, vma, address, ptep, entry,
> pagecache_page, ptl);
> - goto out_ptl;
> + goto out_put_page;
> }
> entry = huge_pte_mkdirty(entry);
> }
> @@ -3215,7 +3219,11 @@ int hugetlb_fault(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> if (huge_ptep_set_access_flags(vma, address, ptep, entry,
> flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE))
> update_mmu_cache(vma, address, ptep);
> -
> +out_put_page:
> + put_page(page);
If I'm reading this correctly, there's now a small but nasty chance that
this put_page will be the one which frees the page, and the unlock_page
below will then be unlocking a freed page. Our "Bad page" checks should
detect that case, so it won't be as serious as unlocking someone else's
page; but you still should avoid that possibility.
> +out_unlock_page:
mm/hugetlb.c:3231:1: warning: label `out_unlock_page' defined but not used [-Wunused-label]
> + if (page != pagecache_page)
> + unlock_page(page);
> out_ptl:
> spin_unlock(ptl);
>
> @@ -3223,10 +3231,6 @@ int hugetlb_fault(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> unlock_page(pagecache_page);
> put_page(pagecache_page);
> }
> - if (page != pagecache_page)
> - unlock_page(page);
> - put_page(page);
> -
> out_mutex:
> mutex_unlock(&htlb_fault_mutex_table[hash]);
> return ret;
> --
> 1.9.3
--
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