linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: add mempolicy check in the reservation routine

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: <20200724073942.GE4061@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Fri, 24 Jul 2020 09:39:42 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
Cc:     mike.kravetz@...cle.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jianchao Guo <guojianchao@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: add mempolicy check in the reservation
 routine

On Thu 23-07-20 15:44:17, Muchun Song wrote:
> In the reservation routine, we only check whether the cpuset meets
> the memory allocation requirements. But we ignore the mempolicy of
> MPOL_BIND case. If someone mmap hugetlb succeeds, but the subsequent
> memory allocation may fail due to mempolicy restrictions and receives
> the SIGBUS signal. This can be reproduced by the follow steps.
> 
>  1) Compile the test case.
>     cd tools/testing/selftests/vm/
>     gcc map_hugetlb.c -o map_hugetlb
> 
>  2) Pre-allocate huge pages. Suppose there are 2 numa nodes in the
>     system. Each node will pre-allocate one huge page.
>     echo 2 > /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages
> 
>  3) Run test case(mmap 4MB). We receive the SIGBUS signal.
>     numactl --membind=0 ./map_hugetlb 4

Cpusets and mempolicy interaction has always been a nightmare and
semantic might get really awkward in some cases. In this case I am not
really sure anybody really does soemthing like that but anyway...

[...]

> -static unsigned int cpuset_mems_nr(unsigned int *array)
> +static nodemask_t *mempolicy_current_bind_nodemask(void)
> +{
> +	struct mempolicy *mpol;
> +	nodemask_t *nodemask;
> +
> +	mpol = get_task_policy(current);
> +	if (mpol->mode == MPOL_BIND)
> +		nodemask = &mpol->v.nodes;
> +	else
> +		nodemask = NULL;
> +
> +	return nodemask;
> +}

We already have policy_nodemask which tries to do this. Is there any
reason to not reuse it?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs