[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151001144951.GA6781@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 16:49:51 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: fix the racy mm->locked_vm change in
On 09/30, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > "mm->locked_vm += grow" and vm_stat_account() in acct_stack_growth()
> > are not safe; multiple threads using the same ->mm can do this at the
> > same time trying to expans different vma's under down_read(mmap_sem).
> expand
> > This means that one of the "locked_vm += grow" changes can be lost
> > and we can miss munlock_vma_pages_all() later.
>
> From the Cc list, I guess you are thinking this might be the fix to
> the "Bad state page (mlocked)" issues Andrey and Sasha have reported.
Yes, I found this when I tried to explain this problem, but I doubt
this change can fix it... Firstly I think it is very unlikely that
trinity hits this race. And even if mm->locked_vm is wrongly equal
to zero in exit_mmap(), it seems that page_remove_rmap() should do
clear_page_mlock(). But I do not understand this code enough. So if
this patch can actually help I would really like to know why ;)
And of course this can not explain other traces which look like
mm->mmap corruption.
> Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Thanks!
> with some hesitation. I don't like very much that the preliminary
> mm->locked_vm + grow check is still done without complete locking,
> so racing threads could get more locked_vm than they're permitted;
> but I'm not sure that we care enough to put page_table_lock back
> over all of that (and security_vm_enough_memory wants to have final
> say on whether to go ahead); even if it was that way years ago.
Yes. Plus all these RLIMIT_MEMLOCK/etc and security_* checks assume
that we are going to expand current->mm, but this is not necessarily
true. Debugger or sys_process_vm_* can expand a foreign vma.
Oleg.
--
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