[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 11:29:44 +0300
From: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>
To: Wei Yang <richardw.yang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>, Qian Cai <cai@....pw>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: "reuse mergeable anon_vma as parent when fork" causes a crash on
s390
On 10/10/2019 06.15, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 10:36:01AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>> Hi, Qian, Shakeel
>>
>> Thanks for testing.
>>
>> Sounds I missed some case to handle. anon_vma_clone() now would be called in
>> vma_adjust, which is a different case when it is introduced.
>>
>
> Well, I have to correct my statement. The reason is we may did something more
> in anon_vma_clone().
>
> Here is a quick fix, while I need to go through all the cases carefully.
Oops, I've overlooked this case too.
You have to check src->anon_vma
otherwise in __split_vma or copy_vma dst could pick completely random anon_vma.
Also checking prev will not hurt, just to be sure.
So, something like this should work:
if (!dst->anon_vma && src->anon_vma &&
prev && pprev && pprev->anon_vma == src->anon_vma)
dst->anon_vma = prev->anon_vma;
>
> diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
> index 12f6c3d7fd9d..2844f442208d 100644
> --- a/mm/rmap.c
> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
> @@ -271,7 +271,7 @@ int anon_vma_clone(struct vm_area_struct *dst, struct vm_area_struct *src)
> * 1. Parent has vm_prev, which implies we have vm_prev.
> * 2. Parent and its vm_prev have the same anon_vma.
> */
> - if (pprev && pprev->anon_vma == src->anon_vma)
> + if (!dst->anon_vma && pprev && pprev->anon_vma == src->anon_vma)
> dst->anon_vma = prev->anon_vma;
>
> list_for_each_entry_reverse(pavc, &src->anon_vma_chain, same_vma) {
>
>> BTW, do you have the specific test case? So that I could verify my change. The
>> kernel build test doesn't trigger this.
>>
>> Thanks a lot :-)
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 03:21:11PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
>> --
>> Wei Yang
>> Help you, Help me
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists