From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
To: linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Michael Rapoport <RAPOPORT@il.ibm.com>,
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com>,
Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>
Subject: [PATCH 0/3] userfaultfd non-cooperative further update for 4.11 merge window
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 19:19:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170224181957.19736-1-aarcange@redhat.com> (raw)
Hello,
unfortunately I noticed one relevant bug in userfaultfd_exit while
doing more testing. I've been doing testing before and this was also
tested by kbuild bot and exercised by the selftest, but this bug never
reproduced before.
I dropped userfaultfd_exit as result. I dropped it because of
implementation difficulty in receiving signals in __mmput and because
I think -ENOSPC as result from the background UFFDIO_COPY should be
enough already.
Before I decided to remove userfaultfd_exit, I noticed
userfaultfd_exit wasn't exercised by the selftest and when I tried to
exercise it, after moving it to a more correct place in __mmput where
it would make more sense and where the vma list is stable, it resulted
in the event_wait_completion in D state. So then I added the second
patch to be sure even if we call userfaultfd_event_wait_completion too
late during task exit(), we won't risk to generate tasks in D
state. The same check exists in handle_userfault() for the same
reason, except it makes a difference there, while here is just a
robustness check and it's run under WARN_ON_ONCE.
While looking at the userfaultfd_event_wait_completion() function I
looked back at its callers too while at it and I think it's not ok to
stop executing dup_fctx on the fcs list because we relay on
userfaultfd_event_wait_completion to execute
userfaultfd_ctx_put(fctx->orig) which is paired against
userfaultfd_ctx_get(fctx->orig) in dup_userfault just before
list_add(fcs). This change only takes care of fctx->orig but this area
also needs further review looking for similar problems in fctx->new.
The only patch that is urgent is the first because it's an use after
free during a SMP race condition that affects all processes if
CONFIG_USERFAULTFD=y. Very hard to reproduce though and probably
impossible without SLUB poisoning enabled.
Mike and Pavel please review, thanks!
Andrea
Andrea Arcangeli (3):
userfaultfd: non-cooperative: rollback userfaultfd_exit
userfaultfd: non-cooperative: robustness check
userfaultfd: non-cooperative: release all ctx in
dup_userfaultfd_complete
fs/userfaultfd.c | 47 +++++++---------------------------------
include/linux/userfaultfd_k.h | 6 -----
include/uapi/linux/userfaultfd.h | 5 +----
kernel/exit.c | 1 -
4 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)
--
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>
next reply other threads:[~2017-02-24 18:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-24 18:19 Andrea Arcangeli [this message]
2017-02-24 18:19 ` [PATCH 1/3] userfaultfd: non-cooperative: rollback userfaultfd_exit Andrea Arcangeli
2017-02-24 18:19 ` [PATCH 2/3] userfaultfd: non-cooperative: robustness check Andrea Arcangeli
2017-02-24 18:19 ` [PATCH 3/3] userfaultfd: non-cooperative: release all ctx in dup_userfaultfd_complete Andrea Arcangeli
2017-02-28 7:15 ` [PATCH 0/3] userfaultfd non-cooperative further update for 4.11 merge window Mike Rapoport
2017-03-01 5:17 ` [PATCH 1.5/3] userfaultfd: documentation fixup after removal of UFFD_EVENT_EXIT Mike Rapoport
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170224181957.19736-1-aarcange@redhat.com \
--to=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=RAPOPORT@il.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dgilbert@redhat.com \
--cc=hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=xemul@parallels.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).