Re: [PATCH] ksm: fix conflict between mmput and scan_get_next_rmap_item

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

On Thu, 5 May 2016 20:42:56 +0800 Zhou Chengming <zhouchengming1@huawei.com> wrote:

> A concurrency issue about KSM in the function scan_get_next_rmap_item.
> 
> task A (ksmd):				|task B (the mm's task):
> 					|
> mm = slot->mm;				|
> down_read(&mm->mmap_sem);		|
> 					|
> ...					|
> 					|
> spin_lock(&ksm_mmlist_lock);		|
> 					|
> ksm_scan.mm_slot go to the next slot;	|
> 					|
> spin_unlock(&ksm_mmlist_lock);		|
> 					|mmput() ->
> 					|	ksm_exit():
> 					|
> 					|spin_lock(&ksm_mmlist_lock);
> 					|if (mm_slot && ksm_scan.mm_slot != mm_slot) {
> 					|	if (!mm_slot->rmap_list) {
> 					|		easy_to_free = 1;
> 					|		...
> 					|
> 					|if (easy_to_free) {
> 					|	mmdrop(mm);
> 					|	...
> 					|
> 					|So this mm_struct will be freed successfully.
> 					|
> up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);			|
> 
> As we can see above, the ksmd thread may access a mm_struct that already
> been freed to the kmem_cache.
> Suppose a fork will get this mm_struct from the kmem_cache, the ksmd thread
> then call up_read(&mm->mmap_sem), will cause mmap_sem.count to become -1.
> I changed the scan_get_next_rmap_item function refered to the khugepaged
> scan function.

Thanks.

We need to decide whether this fix should be backported into earlier
(-stable) kernels.  Can you tell us how easily this is triggered and
share your thoughts on this?

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>