linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] mm: Rework return value for copy_one

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: <20200922165354.GG11679@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Sep 2020 18:53:55 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill@...temov.name>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] mm: Rework return value for copy_one_pte()

On 09/22, Peter Xu wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 05:48:46PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > However since I didn't change this logic in this patch, it probably means this
> > > bug is also in the original code before this series...  I'm thinking maybe I
> > > should prepare a standalone patch to clear the swp_entry_t and cc stable.
> >
> > Well, if copy_one_pte(src_pte) hits a swap entry and returns entry.val != 0, then
> > pte_none(*src_pte) is not possible after restart? This means that copy_one_pte()
> > will be called at least once.
>
> Note that we've released the page table locks, so afaict the old swp entry can
> be gone under us when we go back to the "do" loop... :)

But how?

I am just curious, I don't understand this code enough.

Oleg.