[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3b4c72ff-7894-4772-a918-7e20d00fac1b@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 19:45:38 -0400
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Charan Teja Kalla <quic_charante@...cinc.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Prevent derefencing NULL ptr in pfn_section_valid()
On 7/1/24 09:50, Charan Teja Kalla wrote:
> Hi Waiman,
>
> On 6/26/2024 5:46 AM, Waiman Long wrote:
>> Commit 5ec8e8ea8b77 ("mm/sparsemem: fix race in accessing
>> memory_section->usage") changed pfn_section_valid() to add a READ_ONCE()
>> call around "ms->usage" to fix a race with section_deactivate() where
>> ms->usage can be cleared. The READ_ONCE() call, by itself, is not enough
>> to prevent NULL pointer dereference. We need to check its value before
>> dereferencing it.
> I am unable to see a scenario where ms->usage will be NULL when
> pfn_section_valid() is called:
>
> 1) In pfn_valid, valid_section() check ensures that pfn_section_valid()
> is not called as the section is marked as invalid.
>
> 2) In pfn_to_online_page, online_section() check ensures that
> pfn_section_valid() is not called.
>
> and in the update path, we do:
> kfree_rcu(ms->usage, rcu);
> WRITE_ONCE(ms->usage, NULL);
>
> Could you help me in understanding about what I am missing here, please?
>
With the below timing sequence:
CPU 0 CPU 1
----- -----
if (!valid_section(ms))
return 0;
ms->section_mem_map &=
~SECTION_HAS_MEM_MAP <interrupt>
WRITE_ONCE(ms->usage, NULL);
READ_ONCE(ms->usage)->subsection_map
In the time gap between valid_section() check and accessing ms->usage,
it may have been cleared leading to dereferencing a NULL pointer. That is
why it will be prudent to do a NULL check first.
Regards,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists