[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y5rR9n5HSvlATV5A@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2022 08:51:18 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/mempolicy: Fix memory leak in
set_mempolicy_home_node system call
On Wed 14-12-22 17:21:10, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> When encountering any vma in the range with policy other than MPOL_BIND
> or MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY, an error is returned without issuing a mpol_put
> on the policy just allocated with mpol_dup().
>
> This allows arbitrary users to leak kernel memory.
>
> Fixes: c6018b4b2549 ("mm/mempolicy: add set_mempolicy_home_node syscall")
> Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
> Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>
> Cc: Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>
> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
> Cc: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
> Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
> Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
> Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
> Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
> Cc: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
> Cc: <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org # 5.17+
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Thanks for catching this!
Btw. looking at the code again it seems rather pointless to duplicate
the policy just to throw it away anyway. A slightly bigger diff but this
looks more reasonable to me. What do you think? I can also send it as a
clean up on top of your fix.
---
diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
index 61aa9aedb728..918cdc8a7f0c 100644
--- a/mm/mempolicy.c
+++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
@@ -1489,7 +1489,7 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(set_mempolicy_home_node, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, le
{
struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm;
struct vm_area_struct *vma;
- struct mempolicy *new;
+ struct mempolicy *new. *old;
unsigned long vmstart;
unsigned long vmend;
unsigned long end;
@@ -1521,30 +1521,28 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE4(set_mempolicy_home_node, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, le
return 0;
mmap_write_lock(mm);
for_each_vma_range(vmi, vma, end) {
- vmstart = max(start, vma->vm_start);
- vmend = min(end, vma->vm_end);
- new = mpol_dup(vma_policy(vma));
- if (IS_ERR(new)) {
- err = PTR_ERR(new);
- break;
- }
- /*
- * Only update home node if there is an existing vma policy
- */
- if (!new)
- continue;
-
/*
* If any vma in the range got policy other than MPOL_BIND
* or MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY we return error. We don't reset
* the home node for vmas we already updated before.
*/
- if (new->mode != MPOL_BIND && new->mode != MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY) {
+ old = vma_policy(vma);
+ if (!old)
+ continue;
+ if (old->mode != MPOL_BIND && old->mode != MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY) {
err = -EOPNOTSUPP;
break;
}
+ new = mpol_dup(vma_policy(vma));
+ if (IS_ERR(new)) {
+ err = PTR_ERR(new);
+ break;
+ }
+
new->home_node = home_node;
+ vmstart = max(start, vma->vm_start);
+ vmend = min(end, vma->vm_end);
err = mbind_range(mm, vmstart, vmend, new);
mpol_put(new);
if (err)
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists