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]

Message-ID: <CAPcyv4jj-BqhPj3vB5=G7YfGPvBgugEZ39gf+3Wwn6BC1fAUJw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 19 Oct 2019 16:09:59 -0700
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jeff Smits <jeff.smits@...el.com>,
        Doug Nelson <doug.nelson@...el.com>,
        stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs/dax: Fix pmd vs pte conflict detection

On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 1:50 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> 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?

Sounds good will add it to v2.