| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 13:45:22 -0400
From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
Xen Devel <Xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>
Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushchenko@...m.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the akpm-current tree with the
xen-tip tree
On 07/30/2018 01:02 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 07/30/2018 05:02 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the akpm-current tree got a conflict in:
>>
>> drivers/xen/gntdev.c
>>
>> between commit:
>>
>> 1d3145675538 ("xen/gntdev: Make private routines/structures accessible")
>>
>> from the xen-tip tree and commit:
>>
>> aaefcabe9c25 ("mm, oom: distinguish blockable mode for mmu notifiers")
>>
>> from the akpm-current tree.
>>
>> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
>> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
>> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
>> is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
>> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
>> complex conflicts.
>>
>> -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell diff --cc drivers/xen/gntdev.c index
>> c866a62f766d,55b4f0e3f4d6..000000000000 --- a/drivers/xen/gntdev.c +++
>> b/drivers/xen/gntdev.c @@@ -479,7 -441,20 +479,20 @@@ static const
>> struct vm_operations_struc /*
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ */
>> -static bool in_range(struct grant_map *map, ++static bool
>> in_range(struct gntdev_grant_map *map, + unsigned long start, unsigned
>> long end) + { + if (!map->vma) + return false; + if
>> (map->vma->vm_start >= end) + return false; + if (map->vma->vm_end <=
>> start) + return false; + + return true; + } + -static void
>> unmap_if_in_range(struct grant_map *map, +static void
>> unmap_if_in_range(struct gntdev_grant_map *map, unsigned long start,
>> unsigned long end) { unsigned long mstart, mend; @@@ -503,15 -472,26
>> +510,26 @@@ WARN_ON(err); } - static void mn_invl_range_start(struct
>> mmu_notifier *mn, + static int mn_invl_range_start(struct mmu_notifier
>> *mn, struct mm_struct *mm, - unsigned long start, unsigned long end) +
>> unsigned long start, unsigned long end, + bool blockable) { struct
>> gntdev_priv *priv = container_of(mn, struct gntdev_priv, mn); - struct
>> grant_map *map; + struct gntdev_grant_map *map; + int ret = 0; + + /*
>> TODO do we really need a mutex here? */ + if (blockable) +
>> mutex_lock(&priv->lock); + else if (!mutex_trylock(&priv->lock)) +
>> return -EAGAIN; - mutex_lock(&priv->lock); list_for_each_entry(map,
>> &priv->maps, next) { + if (in_range(map, start, end)) { + ret =
>> -EAGAIN; + goto out_unlock; + } unmap_if_in_range(map, start, end); }
>> list_for_each_entry(map, &priv->freeable_maps, next) {
Ugh... That's some interesting whitespace optimization on part of
thundebird. Let me paste the relevant patch hunk here.
diff --git a/drivers/xen/gntdev.c b/drivers/xen/gntdev.c
index bd56653b9bbc..55b4f0e3f4d6 100644
--- a/drivers/xen/gntdev.c
+++ b/drivers/xen/gntdev.c
@@ -441,18 +441,25 @@ static const struct vm_operations_struct gntdev_vmops = {
/* ------------------------------------------------------------------ */
+static bool in_range(struct grant_map *map,
+ unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
+{
+ if (!map->vma)
+ return false;
+ if (map->vma->vm_start >= end)
+ return false;
+ if (map->vma->vm_end <= start)
+ return false;
+
+ return true;
+}
+
static void unmap_if_in_range(struct grant_map *map,
unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
{
unsigned long mstart, mend;
int err;
- if (!map->vma)
- return;
- if (map->vma->vm_start >= end)
- return;
- if (map->vma->vm_end <= start)
- return;
mstart = max(start, map->vma->vm_start);
mend = min(end, map->vma->vm_end);
pr_debug("map %d+%d (%lx %lx), range %lx %lx, mrange %lx %lx\n",
@@ -465,21 +472,40 @@ static void unmap_if_in_range(struct grant_map *map,
WARN_ON(err);
}
-static void mn_invl_range_start(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
+static int mn_invl_range_start(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
struct mm_struct *mm,
- unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
+ unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
+ bool blockable)
{
struct gntdev_priv *priv = container_of(mn, struct gntdev_priv, mn);
struct grant_map *map;
+ int ret = 0;
+
+ /* TODO do we really need a mutex here? */
+ if (blockable)
+ mutex_lock(&priv->lock);
+ else if (!mutex_trylock(&priv->lock))
+ return -EAGAIN;
- mutex_lock(&priv->lock);
list_for_each_entry(map, &priv->maps, next) {
+ if (in_range(map, start, end)) {
+ ret = -EAGAIN;
+ goto out_unlock;
+ }
unmap_if_in_range(map, start, end);
}
list_for_each_entry(map, &priv->freeable_maps, next) {
+ if (in_range(map, start, end)) {
+ ret = -EAGAIN;
+ goto out_unlock;
+ }
unmap_if_in_range(map, start, end);
}
+
+out_unlock:
mutex_unlock(&priv->lock);
+
+ return ret;
}
-boris
>
> I clearly missed this (aaefcabe9c25) patch but now that I am looking at
> it I don't think I understand the logic for changes in
> list_for_each_entry() loops.
>
> Aren't we ending up never unmapping grant pages? Michal, can you explain
> what you are trying to do here?
>
>
> -boris
>
>
>
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists