linux-kernel - [PATCH v2] mm/mempolicy: fix lock contention on mems

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 11 Aug 2022 20:41:57 +0800
From:   Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2] mm/mempolicy: fix lock contention on mems_allowed

The mems_allowed field can be modified by other tasks, so it isn't
safe to access it with alloc_lock unlocked even in the current
process context.

Say there are two tasks: A from cpusetA is performing set_mempolicy(2),
and B is changing cpusetA's cpuset.mems:

  A (set_mempolicy)		B (echo xx > cpuset.mems)
  -------------------------------------------------------
  pol = mpol_new();
				update_tasks_nodemask(cpusetA) {
				  foreach t in cpusetA {
				    cpuset_change_task_nodemask(t) {
  mpol_set_nodemask(pol) {
				      task_lock(t); // t could be A
    new = f(A->mems_allowed);
				      update t->mems_allowed;
    pol.create(pol, new);
				      task_unlock(t);
  }
				    }
				  }
				}
  task_lock(A);
  A->mempolicy = pol;
  task_unlock(A);

In this case A's pol->nodes is computed by old mems_allowed, and could
be inconsistent with A's new mems_allowed.

While it is different when replacing vmas' policy: the pol->nodes is
gone wild only when current_cpuset_is_being_rebound():

  A (mbind)			B (echo xx > cpuset.mems)
  -------------------------------------------------------
  pol = mpol_new();
  mmap_write_lock(A->mm);
				cpuset_being_rebound = cpusetA;
				update_tasks_nodemask(cpusetA) {
				  foreach t in cpusetA {
				    cpuset_change_task_nodemask(t) {
  mpol_set_nodemask(pol) {
				      task_lock(t); // t could be A
    mask = f(A->mems_allowed);
				      update t->mems_allowed;
    pol.create(pol, mask);
				      task_unlock(t);
  }
				    }
  foreach v in A->mm {
    if (cpuset_being_rebound == cpusetA)
      pol.rebind(pol, cpuset.mems);
    v->vma_policy = pol;
  }
  mmap_write_unlock(A->mm);
				    mmap_write_lock(t->mm);
				    mpol_rebind_mm(t->mm);
				    mmap_write_unlock(t->mm);
				  }
				}
				cpuset_being_rebound = NULL;

In this case, the cpuset.mems, which has already done updating, is
finally used for calculating pol->nodes, rather than A->mems_allowed.
So it is OK to call mpol_set_nodemask() with alloc_lock unlocked when
doing mbind(2).

Fixes: 78b132e9bae9 ("mm/mempolicy: remove or narrow the lock on current")
Signed-off-by: Abel Wu <wuyun.abel@...edance.com>
---
 mm/mempolicy.c | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
index d39b01fd52fe..61e4e6f5cfe8 100644
--- a/mm/mempolicy.c
+++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
@@ -855,12 +855,14 @@ static long do_set_mempolicy(unsigned short mode, unsigned short flags,
 		goto out;
 	}
 
+	task_lock(current);
 	ret = mpol_set_nodemask(new, nodes, scratch);
 	if (ret) {
+		task_unlock(current);
 		mpol_put(new);
 		goto out;
 	}
-	task_lock(current);
+
 	old = current->mempolicy;
 	current->mempolicy = new;
 	if (new && new->mode == MPOL_INTERLEAVE)
-- 
2.31.1