[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y8e/N1m+YGFmxy+L@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 10:43:19 +0100
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, michel@...pinasse.org,
jglisse@...gle.com, vbabka@...e.cz, hannes@...xchg.org,
mgorman@...hsingularity.net, dave@...olabs.net,
willy@...radead.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com, peterz@...radead.org,
ldufour@...ux.ibm.com, laurent.dufour@...ibm.com,
paulmck@...nel.org, luto@...nel.org, songliubraving@...com,
peterx@...hat.com, david@...hat.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
hughd@...gle.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de, kent.overstreet@...ux.dev,
punit.agrawal@...edance.com, lstoakes@...il.com,
peterjung1337@...il.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
axelrasmussen@...gle.com, joelaf@...gle.com, minchan@...gle.com,
jannh@...gle.com, shakeelb@...gle.com, tatashin@...gle.com,
edumazet@...gle.com, gthelen@...gle.com, gurua@...gle.com,
arjunroy@...gle.com, soheil@...gle.com, hughlynch@...gle.com,
leewalsh@...gle.com, posk@...gle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 26/41] kernel/fork: assert no VMA readers during its
destruction
On Tue 17-01-23 17:53:00, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 7:42 AM 'Michal Hocko' via kernel-team
> <kernel-team@...roid.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon 09-01-23 12:53:21, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > Assert there are no holders of VMA lock for reading when it is about to be
> > > destroyed.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
> > > ---
> > > include/linux/mm.h | 8 ++++++++
> > > kernel/fork.c | 2 ++
> > > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
> > > index 594e835bad9c..c464fc8a514c 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/mm.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
> > > @@ -680,6 +680,13 @@ static inline void vma_assert_write_locked(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > > VM_BUG_ON_VMA(vma->vm_lock_seq != READ_ONCE(vma->vm_mm->mm_lock_seq), vma);
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static inline void vma_assert_no_reader(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > > +{
> > > + VM_BUG_ON_VMA(rwsem_is_locked(&vma->lock) &&
> > > + vma->vm_lock_seq != READ_ONCE(vma->vm_mm->mm_lock_seq),
> > > + vma);
> >
> > Do we really need to check for vm_lock_seq? rwsem_is_locked should tell
> > us something is wrong on its own, no? This could be somebody racing with
> > the vma destruction and using the write lock. Unlikely but I do not see
> > why to narrow debugging scope.
>
> I wanted to ensure there are no page fault handlers (read-lockers)
> when we are destroying the VMA and rwsem_is_locked(&vma->lock) alone
> could trigger if someone is concurrently calling vma_write_lock(). But
> I don't think we expect someone to be write-locking the VMA while we
That would be UAF, no?
> are destroying it, so you are right, I'm overcomplicating things here.
> I think I can get rid of vma_assert_no_reader() and add
> VM_BUG_ON_VMA(rwsem_is_locked(&vma->lock)) directly in
> __vm_area_free(). WDYT?
Yes, that adds some debugging. Not sure it is really necessary buyt it
is VM_BUG_ON so why not.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists