linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs/dax: Fix pmd vs pte conflict detection

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]

Date:   Sat, 19 Oct 2019 13:50:03 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Jeff Smits <jeff.smits@...el.com>,
        Doug Nelson <doug.nelson@...el.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/dax: Fix pmd vs pte conflict detection

On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 09:26:19AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> Check for NULL entries before checking the entry order, otherwise NULL
> is misinterpreted as a present pte conflict. The 'order' check needs to
> happen before the locked check as an unlocked entry at the wrong order
> must fallback to lookup the correct order.
> 
> Reported-by: Jeff Smits <jeff.smits@...el.com>
> Reported-by: Doug Nelson <doug.nelson@...el.com>
> Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
> Fixes: 23c84eb78375 ("dax: Fix missed wakeup with PMD faults")
> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@...radead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
> ---
>  fs/dax.c |    5 +++--
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/dax.c b/fs/dax.c
> index a71881e77204..08160011d94c 100644
> --- a/fs/dax.c
> +++ b/fs/dax.c
> @@ -221,10 +221,11 @@ static void *get_unlocked_entry(struct xa_state *xas, unsigned int order)
>  
>  	for (;;) {
>  		entry = xas_find_conflict(xas);
> +		if (!entry || WARN_ON_ONCE(!xa_is_value(entry)))
> +			return entry;
>  		if (dax_entry_order(entry) < order)
>  			return XA_RETRY_ENTRY;
> -		if (!entry || WARN_ON_ONCE(!xa_is_value(entry)) ||
> -				!dax_is_locked(entry))
> +		if (!dax_is_locked(entry))
>  			return entry;

Yes, I think this works.  Should we also add:

 static unsigned int dax_entry_order(void *entry)
 {
+	BUG_ON(!xa_is_value(entry));
 	if (xa_to_value(entry) & DAX_PMD)
 		return PMD_ORDER;
 	return 0;
 }

which would have caught this logic error before it caused a performance
regression?