[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210803160803.GG543798@ziepe.ca>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2021 13:08:03 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Luigi Rizzo <lrizzo@...gle.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add mmap_assert_locked() annotations to find_vma*()
On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 10:53:41AM -0700, Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> find_vma() and variants need protection when used.
> This patch adds mmap_assert_lock() calls in the functions.
>
> To make sure the invariant is satisfied, we also need to add a
> mmap_read_loc() around the get_user_pages_remote() call in
> get_arg_page(). The lock is not strictly necessary because the mm
> has been newly created, but the extra cost is limited because
> the same mutex was also acquired shortly before in __bprm_mm_init(),
> so it is hot and uncontended.
>
> Signed-off-by: Luigi Rizzo <lrizzo@...gle.com>
> fs/exec.c | 2 ++
> mm/mmap.c | 2 ++
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c
> index 38f63451b928..ac7603e985b4 100644
> +++ b/fs/exec.c
> @@ -217,8 +217,10 @@ static struct page *get_arg_page(struct linux_binprm *bprm, unsigned long pos,
> * We are doing an exec(). 'current' is the process
> * doing the exec and bprm->mm is the new process's mm.
> */
> + mmap_read_lock(bprm->mm);
> ret = get_user_pages_remote(bprm->mm, pos, 1, gup_flags,
> &page, NULL, NULL);
> + mmap_read_unlock(bprm->mm);
> if (ret <= 0)
> return NULL;
Wasn't Jann Horn working on something like this too?
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20201016225713.1971256-1-jannh@google.com/
IIRC it was very tricky here, are you sure it is OK to obtain this lock
here?
I would much rather see Jann's complete solution be merged then
hacking at the exec problem on the side..
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists