[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e361b003-6437-079b-b42d-a29b72604354@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 16:08:28 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Liam Howlett <liam.howlett@...cle.com>
Cc: "maple-tree@...ts.infradead.org" <maple-tree@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Liu Zixian <liuzixian4@...wei.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/mmap: Fix MAP_FIXED address return on VMA merge
>>> mm/mmap.c | 15 +++++++--------
>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
>>> index 42cd2c260898..22010e13f1a1 100644
>>> --- a/mm/mmap.c
>>> +++ b/mm/mmap.c
>>> @@ -2625,14 +2625,14 @@ unsigned long mmap_region(struct file *file, unsigned long addr,
>>> if (error)
>>> goto unmap_and_free_vma;
>>> - /* Can addr have changed??
>>> - *
>>> - * Answer: Yes, several device drivers can do it in their
>>> - * f_op->mmap method. -DaveM
>>> + /*
>>> + * Expansion is handled above, merging is handled below.
>>> + * Drivers should not alter the address of the VMA.
>>> */
>>> - WARN_ON_ONCE(addr != vma->vm_start);
>>> -
>>> - addr = vma->vm_start;
>>> + if (WARN_ON((addr != vma->vm_start))) {
>>> + error = -EINVAL;
>>> + goto close_and_free_vma;
>>> + }
>>
>> If this is something that user space can trigger, WARN_* is the wrong
>> choice. But what I understand from the comment change is that this must not
>> happen at that point unless there is a real issue.
>
> The VMA start address could be changed in call_mmap() which is a driver
> call. I guess someone could write a driver to mmap by a users action?
> I don't think it can be reached other ways. In any case, I'm changing a
> WARN_ON_ONCE() to a WARN_ON() and undoing the badness instead of
> marching forwards.
WARN_ON_ONCE() can also be used in conditionals if that's what you were
concerned about, but ...
>
>>
>> Why not "if (WARN_ON_ONCE)" ?
>
> I was thinking it was harder to ignore if it happen more frequently?
> There isn't a driver that does this now, but I'm not picky over which
> variant to call.
.. I think the assumption really is that we won't see (m)any these
calls. And if we do, it's a bad bad driver. So WARN_ON() might be just fine.
If this would be easy to trigger by any user space, WARN* would have
been the wrong choice, that's why I was asking.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists