linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm: fix list corruptions on shmem shrinklist

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: <20170803161146.4316d105e533a363a5597e64@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Thu, 3 Aug 2017 16:11:46 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        stable@...nel.org, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix list corruptions on shmem shrinklist

On Wed,  2 Aug 2017 22:46:30 -0700 Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:

> We saw many list corruption warnings on shmem shrinklist:
> 
> ...
> 
> The problem is that shmem_unused_huge_shrink() moves entries
> from the global sbinfo->shrinklist to its local lists and then
> releases the spinlock. However, a parallel shmem_setattr()
> could access one of these entries directly and add it back to
> the global shrinklist if it is removed, with the spinlock held.
> 
> The logic itself looks solid since an entry could be either
> in a local list or the global list, otherwise it is removed
> from one of them by list_del_init(). So probably the race
> condition is that, one CPU is in the middle of INIT_LIST_HEAD()

Where is this INIT_LIST_HEAD()?

> but the other CPU calls list_empty() which returns true
> too early then the following list_add_tail() sees a corrupted
> entry.
> 
> list_empty_careful() is designed to fix this situation.
> 

I'm not sure I'm understanding this.  AFAICT all the list operations to
which you refer are synchronized under spin_lock(&sbinfo->shrinklist_lock)?