[PATCH 2/6] mempolicy: Kill all mempolicy sharing
From: kosaki . motohiro
Date: Wed May 30 2012 - 05:03:12 EST
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dave Jones' system call fuzz testing tool "trinity" triggered the following
bug error with slab debugging enabled
[ 7613.229315] =============================================================================
[ 7613.229955] BUG numa_policy (Not tainted): Poison overwritten
[ 7613.230560] -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ 7613.230560]
[ 7613.231834] INFO: 0xffff880146498250-0xffff880146498250. First byte 0x6a instead of 0x6b
[ 7613.232518] INFO: Allocated in mpol_new+0xa3/0x140 age=46310 cpu=6 pid=32154
[ 7613.233188] __slab_alloc+0x3d3/0x445
[ 7613.233877] kmem_cache_alloc+0x29d/0x2b0
[ 7613.234564] mpol_new+0xa3/0x140
[ 7613.235236] sys_mbind+0x142/0x620
[ 7613.235929] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
[ 7613.236640] INFO: Freed in __mpol_put+0x27/0x30 age=46268 cpu=6 pid=32154
[ 7613.237354] __slab_free+0x2e/0x1de
[ 7613.238080] kmem_cache_free+0x25a/0x260
[ 7613.238799] __mpol_put+0x27/0x30
[ 7613.239515] remove_vma+0x68/0x90
[ 7613.240223] exit_mmap+0x118/0x140
[ 7613.240939] mmput+0x73/0x110
[ 7613.241651] exit_mm+0x108/0x130
[ 7613.242367] do_exit+0x162/0xb90
[ 7613.243074] do_group_exit+0x4f/0xc0
[ 7613.243790] sys_exit_group+0x17/0x20
[ 7613.244507] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
[ 7613.245212] INFO: Slab 0xffffea0005192600 objects=27 used=27 fp=0x (null) flags=0x20000000004080
[ 7613.246000] INFO: Object 0xffff880146498250 @offset=592 fp=0xffff88014649b9d0
The problem was created by a reference count imbalance. Example, In following case,
mbind(addr, len) try to replace mempolicies of both vma1 and vma2 and thus they will
become to share the same mempolicy, _and_ the new mempolicy has MPOL_F_SHARED flag.
+-------------------+-------------------+
| vma1 | vma2(shmem) |
+-------------------+-------------------+
| |
addr addr+len
Look at alloc_pages_vma(), it uses get_vma_policy() and mpol_cond_put() pair
for maintaining mempolicy refcount. The current rule is, get_vma_policy() does
NOT increment refcount if the policy is not attached shmem vma and mpol_cond_put()
DOES decrement refcount if mpol has MPOL_F_SHARED.
See? In above case, vma1 is not shmem vma and vma->policy has MPOL_F_SHARED! then,
refcount will be decreased even though was not increased whenever alloc_page_vma()
is called. As you know, mere mbind(MPOL_MF_MOVE) calls alloc_page_vma().
Oh, Oh my god.. Who can imagine alloc_pages_vma() was broken!? It is one of Linux
memory management central code! This bug was introduced by commit 52cd3b0740
(mempolicy: rework mempolicy Reference Counting) at 2008. I.e. it was living 4
years!
More unfortunately mempolicy has one another serious broken. Currently,
mempolicy rebind logic (it is called from cpuset rebinding) ignore a refcount
of mempolicy and override it forcibly. Thus, any mempolicy sharing may
cause mempolicy corruption. The bug was introduced by commit 68860ec10b
(cpusets: automatic numa mempolicy rebinding) at 2005!
Maybe, we need to rewrite MPOL_F_SHARED and mempolicy rebinding code at all.
But at first step, to disable any policy sharing hide the issue from a userland.
Reported-by: Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx>,
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx>,
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
mm/mempolicy.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
1 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
index 0a60def..9505cb9 100644
--- a/mm/mempolicy.c
+++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
@@ -607,24 +607,38 @@ check_range(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
return first;
}
-/* Apply policy to a single VMA */
-static int policy_vma(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct mempolicy *new)
+/*
+ * Apply policy to a single VMA
+ * This must be called with the mmap_sem held for writing.
+ */
+static int policy_vma(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct mempolicy *pol)
{
- int err = 0;
- struct mempolicy *old = vma->vm_policy;
+ int err;
+ struct mempolicy *old;
+ struct mempolicy *new;
pr_debug("vma %lx-%lx/%lx vm_ops %p vm_file %p set_policy %p\n",
vma->vm_start, vma->vm_end, vma->vm_pgoff,
vma->vm_ops, vma->vm_file,
vma->vm_ops ? vma->vm_ops->set_policy : NULL);
- if (vma->vm_ops && vma->vm_ops->set_policy)
+ new = mpol_dup(pol);
+ if (IS_ERR(new))
+ return PTR_ERR(new);
+
+ if (vma->vm_ops && vma->vm_ops->set_policy) {
err = vma->vm_ops->set_policy(vma, new);
- if (!err) {
- mpol_get(new);
- vma->vm_policy = new;
- mpol_put(old);
+ if (err)
+ goto err_out;
}
+
+ old = vma->vm_policy;
+ vma->vm_policy = new; /* protected by mmap_sem */
+ mpol_put(old);
+
+ return 0;
+ err_out:
+ mpol_put(new);
return err;
}
@@ -2147,15 +2161,24 @@ static void sp_delete(struct shared_policy *sp, struct sp_node *n)
static struct sp_node *sp_alloc(unsigned long start, unsigned long end,
struct mempolicy *pol)
{
- struct sp_node *n = kmem_cache_alloc(sn_cache, GFP_KERNEL);
+ struct sp_node *n;
+ struct mempolicy *newpol;
+ n = kmem_cache_alloc(sn_cache, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!n)
return NULL;
+
+ newpol = mpol_dup(pol);
+ if (IS_ERR(newpol)) {
+ kmem_cache_free(sn_cache, n);
+ return NULL;
+ }
+ newpol->flags |= MPOL_F_SHARED;
+
n->start = start;
n->end = end;
- mpol_get(pol);
- pol->flags |= MPOL_F_SHARED; /* for unref */
- n->policy = pol;
+ n->policy = newpol;
+
return n;
}
--
1.7.1
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/