linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm: prevent potential recursive reclaim due to clearing PF

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: <092301d2af71$31c97fe0$955c7fa0$@alibaba-inc.com>
Date:   Fri, 07 Apr 2017 15:33:03 +0800
From:   "Hillf Danton" <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>
To:     "'Vlastimil Babka'" <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        "'Andrew Morton'" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "'Michal Hocko'" <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        "'Mel Gorman'" <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        "'Johannes Weiner'" <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>, <nbd-general@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
        <open-iscsi@...glegroups.com>, <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        "'Andrey Ryabinin'" <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm: prevent potential recursive reclaim due to clearing PF_MEMALLOC

On April 05, 2017 3:47 PM Vlastimil Babka wrote: 
> 
> The function __alloc_pages_direct_compact() sets PF_MEMALLOC to prevent
> deadlock during page migration by lock_page() (see the comment in
> __unmap_and_move()). Then it unconditionally clears the flag, which can clear a
> pre-existing PF_MEMALLOC flag and result in recursive reclaim. This was not a
> problem until commit a8161d1ed609 ("mm, page_alloc: restructure direct
> compaction handling in slowpath"), because direct compation was called only
> after direct reclaim, which was skipped when PF_MEMALLOC flag was set.
> 
> Even now it's only a theoretical issue, as the new callsite of
> __alloc_pages_direct_compact() is reached only for costly orders and when
> gfp_pfmemalloc_allowed() is true, which means either __GFP_NOMEMALLOC is in
> gfp_flags or in_interrupt() is true. There is no such known context, but let's
> play it safe and make __alloc_pages_direct_compact() robust for cases where
> PF_MEMALLOC is already set.
> 
> Fixes: a8161d1ed609 ("mm, page_alloc: restructure direct compaction handling in slowpath")
> Reported-by: Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>
> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
> ---
Acked-by: Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>

>  mm/page_alloc.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 3589f8be53be..b84e6ffbe756 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -3288,6 +3288,7 @@ __alloc_pages_direct_compact(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
>  		enum compact_priority prio, enum compact_result *compact_result)
>  {
>  	struct page *page;
> +	unsigned int noreclaim_flag = current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC;
> 
>  	if (!order)
>  		return NULL;
> @@ -3295,7 +3296,7 @@ __alloc_pages_direct_compact(gfp_t gfp_mask, unsigned int order,
>  	current->flags |= PF_MEMALLOC;
>  	*compact_result = try_to_compact_pages(gfp_mask, order, alloc_flags, ac,
>  									prio);
> -	current->flags &= ~PF_MEMALLOC;
> +	current->flags = (current->flags & ~PF_MEMALLOC) | noreclaim_flag;
> 
>  	if (*compact_result <= COMPACT_INACTIVE)
>  		return NULL;
> --
> 2.12.2