[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1512122128-6220-1-git-send-email-xieyisheng1@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 17:55:28 +0800
From: Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@...wei.com>
To: <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@...wei.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Chris Salls <salls@...ucsb.edu>,
Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
Tan Xiaojun <tanxiaojun@...wei.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: [PATCH v4 3/3] mm/mempolicy: add nodes_empty check in SYSC_migrate_pages
As in manpage of migrate_pages, the errno should be set to EINVAL when
none of the node IDs specified by new_nodes are on-line and allowed by the
process's current cpuset context, or none of the specified nodes contain
memory. However, when test by following case:
new_nodes = 0;
old_nodes = 0xf;
ret = migrate_pages(pid, old_nodes, new_nodes, MAX);
The ret will be 0 and no errno is set. As the new_nodes is empty, we
should expect EINVAL as documented.
To fix the case like above, this patch check whether target nodes AND
current task_nodes is empty, and then check whether AND
node_states[N_MEMORY] is empty.
Meanwhile,this patch also remove the check of EPERM on CAP_SYS_NICE.
The caller of migrate_pages should be able to migrate the target process
pages anywhere the caller can allocate memory, if the caller can access
the mm_struct.
Signed-off-by: Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@...wei.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Chris Salls <salls@...ucsb.edu>
Cc: Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
Cc: Tan Xiaojun <tanxiaojun@...wei.com>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
---
v3:
* check whether node is empty after AND current task node, and then nodes
which have memory
v4:
* remove the check of EPERM on CAP_SYS_NICE.
Hi Vlastimil and Christopher,
Could you please help to review this version?
Thanks
Yisheng Xie
mm/mempolicy.c | 13 +++++--------
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
index 65df28d..4da74b6 100644
--- a/mm/mempolicy.c
+++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
@@ -1426,17 +1426,14 @@ static int copy_nodes_to_user(unsigned long __user *mask, unsigned long maxnode,
}
rcu_read_unlock();
- task_nodes = cpuset_mems_allowed(task);
- /* Is the user allowed to access the target nodes? */
- if (!nodes_subset(*new, task_nodes) && !capable(CAP_SYS_NICE)) {
- err = -EPERM;
+ task_nodes = cpuset_mems_allowed(current);
+ nodes_and(*new, *new, task_nodes);
+ if (nodes_empty(*new))
goto out_put;
- }
- if (!nodes_subset(*new, node_states[N_MEMORY])) {
- err = -EINVAL;
+ nodes_and(*new, *new, node_states[N_MEMORY]);
+ if (nodes_empty(*new))
goto out_put;
- }
err = security_task_movememory(task);
if (err)
--
1.7.12.4
Powered by blists - more mailing lists