Skip to content
Commit 869833f2 authored by KOSAKI Motohiro's avatar KOSAKI Motohiro Committed by Linus Torvalds
Browse files

mempolicy: remove mempolicy sharing



Dave Jones' system call fuzz testing tool "trinity" triggered the
following bug error with slab debugging enabled

    =============================================================================
    BUG numa_policy (Not tainted): Poison overwritten
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    INFO: 0xffff880146498250-0xffff880146498250. First byte 0x6a instead of 0x6b
    INFO: Allocated in mpol_new+0xa3/0x140 age=46310 cpu=6 pid=32154
     __slab_alloc+0x3d3/0x445
     kmem_cache_alloc+0x29d/0x2b0
     mpol_new+0xa3/0x140
     sys_mbind+0x142/0x620
     system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b

    INFO: Freed in __mpol_put+0x27/0x30 age=46268 cpu=6 pid=32154
     __slab_free+0x2e/0x1de
     kmem_cache_free+0x25a/0x260
     __mpol_put+0x27/0x30
     remove_vma+0x68/0x90
     exit_mmap+0x118/0x140
     mmput+0x73/0x110
     exit_mm+0x108/0x130
     do_exit+0x162/0xb90
     do_group_exit+0x4f/0xc0
     sys_exit_group+0x17/0x20
     system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b

    INFO: Slab 0xffffea0005192600 objects=27 used=27 fp=0x          (null) flags=0x20000000004080
    INFO: Object 0xffff880146498250 @offset=592 fp=0xffff88014649b9d0

The problem is that the structure is being prematurely freed due to a
reference count imbalance. In the following case mbind(addr, len) should
replace the memory policies of both vma1 and vma2 and thus they will
become to share the same mempolicy and the new mempolicy will have the
MPOL_F_SHARED flag.

  +-------------------+-------------------+
  |     vma1          |     vma2(shmem)   |
  +-------------------+-------------------+
  |                                       |
 addr                                 addr+len

alloc_pages_vma() uses get_vma_policy() and mpol_cond_put() pair for
maintaining the mempolicy reference count.  The current rule is that
get_vma_policy() only increments refcount for shmem VMA and
mpol_conf_put() only decrements refcount if the policy has
MPOL_F_SHARED.

In above case, vma1 is not shmem vma and vma->policy has MPOL_F_SHARED!
The reference count will be decreased even though was not increased
whenever alloc_page_vma() is called.  This has been broken since commit
[52cd3b07: mempolicy: rework mempolicy Reference Counting] in 2008.

There is another serious bug with the sharing of memory policies.
Currently, mempolicy rebind logic (it is called from cpuset rebinding)
ignores a refcount of mempolicy and override it forcibly.  Thus, any
mempolicy sharing may cause mempolicy corruption.  The bug was
introduced by commit [68860ec1: cpusets: automatic numa mempolicy
rebinding].

Ideally, the shared policy handling would be rewritten to either
properly handle COW of the policy structures or at least reference count
MPOL_F_SHARED based exclusively on information within the policy.
However, this patch takes the easier approach of disabling any policy
sharing between VMAs.  Each new range allocated with sp_alloc will
allocate a new policy, set the reference count to 1 and drop the
reference count of the old policy.  This increases the memory footprint
but is not expected to be a major problem as mbind() is unlikely to be
used for fine-grained ranges.  It is also inefficient because it means
we allocate a new policy even in cases where mbind_range() could use the
new_policy passed to it.  However, it is more straight-forward and the
change should be invisible to the user.

[mgorman@suse.de: Edited changelog]
Reported-by: default avatarDave Jones <davej@redhat.com&gt;,>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Reviewed-by: default avatarChristoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarKOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarMel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
parent 8d34694c
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment