linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm: mlock: check against vma for actual mlock() size

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]

Date:   Tue, 30 Aug 2016 14:35:13 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To:     wei.guo.simon@...il.com
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, Alexey Klimov <klimov.linux@...il.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Eric B Munson <emunson@...mai.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm: mlock: check against vma for actual mlock() size

On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 06:59:38PM +0800, wei.guo.simon@...il.com wrote:
> From: Simon Guo <wei.guo.simon@...il.com>
> 
> In do_mlock(), the check against locked memory limitation
> has a hole which will fail following cases at step 3):
> 1) User has a memory chunk from addressA with 50k, and user
> mem lock rlimit is 64k.
> 2) mlock(addressA, 30k)
> 3) mlock(addressA, 40k)
> 
> The 3rd step should have been allowed since the 40k request
> is intersected with the previous 30k at step 2), and the
> 3rd step is actually for mlock on the extra 10k memory.
> 
> This patch checks vma to caculate the actual "new" mlock
> size, if necessary, and ajust the logic to fix this issue.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Simon Guo <wei.guo.simon@...il.com>

Looks reasonable to me. Few nitpicks below.

> ---
>  mm/mlock.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 49 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/mlock.c b/mm/mlock.c
> index 14645be..9283187 100644
> --- a/mm/mlock.c
> +++ b/mm/mlock.c
> @@ -617,6 +617,43 @@ static int apply_vma_lock_flags(unsigned long start, size_t len,
>  	return error;
>  }
>  
> +/*
> + * Go through vma areas and sum size of mlocked
> + * vma pages, as return value.
> + * Note deferred memory locking case(mlock2(,,MLOCK_ONFAULT)
> + * is also counted.
> + * Return value: previously mlocked page counts
> + */
> +static int count_mm_mlocked_page_nr(struct mm_struct *mm,
> +		unsigned long start, size_t len)
> +{
> +	struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> +	int count = 0;
> +
> +	if (mm == NULL)
> +		mm = current->mm;
> +
> +	vma = find_vma(mm, start);
> +	if (vma == NULL)
> +		vma = mm->mmap;
> +
> +	for (; vma ; vma = vma->vm_next) {
> +		if (start + len <=  vma->vm_start)
> +			break;

	for (; vma && start + len <= vma->vm_start; vma = vma->vm_next) {

> +		if (vma->vm_flags && VM_LOCKED) {
> +			if (start > vma->vm_start)
> +				count -= (start - vma->vm_start);
> +			if (start + len < vma->vm_end) {
> +				count += start + len - vma->vm_start;
> +				break;
> +			}
> +			count += vma->vm_end - vma->vm_start;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	return (PAGE_ALIGN(count) >> PAGE_SHIFT);

Redundant parenthesis.

And do we need PAGE_ALIGN() here? Caller already aligned 'len', and vma
boundaries are alinged.

> +}
> +
>  static __must_check int do_mlock(unsigned long start, size_t len, vm_flags_t flags)
>  {
>  	unsigned long locked;
> @@ -639,6 +676,18 @@ static __must_check int do_mlock(unsigned long start, size_t len, vm_flags_t fla
>  		return -EINTR;
>  
>  	locked += current->mm->locked_vm;
> +	if ((locked > lock_limit) && (!capable(CAP_IPC_LOCK))) {
> +		/*
> +		 * It is possible that the regions requested
> +		 * intersect with previously mlocked areas,
> +		 * that part area in "mm->locked_vm" should
> +		 * not be counted to new mlock increment
> +		 * count. So check and adjust locked count
> +		 * if necessary.
> +		 */
> +		locked -= count_mm_mlocked_page_nr(current->mm,
> +				start, len);
> +	}
>  
>  	/* check against resource limits */
>  	if ((locked <= lock_limit) || capable(CAP_IPC_LOCK))
> -- 
> 1.8.3.1
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@...ck.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@...ck.org"> email@...ck.org </a>

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov